Food Safety and Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad 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.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notification of regulatory enforcement.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing that starting August 2, 2017, all shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish products entering the United States (U.S.) must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel.
Beginning August 2, 2017, FSIS will enforce the regulations in 9 CFR part 557 (9 CFR 557.1–557.8, 557.10–557.19 and 557.24–557.26). All shipments of imported Siluriformes fish and fish products must be presented at an Official Import Inspection Establishment for reinspection by FSIS personnel beginning August 2, 2017.
Roberta Wagner, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone: (202) 205–0495.
On December 2, 2015, FSIS published the final rule, “Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products Derived from Such Fish,” establishing a mandatory inspection program for fish of the order Siluriformes (80 FR 75590). The final rule set forth regulations in accordance with the provisions of the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills, which amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to include all fish of the order Siluriformes as amenable species and specifically provided for the inspection of Siluriformes fish and fish products to be used as human food. The regulations include a new part 557 (9 CFR 557.1–557.8, 557.10–557.19 and 557.24–557.26), “Importation,” which, among other things, requires that all fish and fish products from any foreign country be reinspected before entering the U.S. (9 CFR 557.6(a)(1)).
The final rule was effective on March 1, 2016, but provided an 18-month transitional period until September 1, 2017, to ensure an orderly transition from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory oversight to the FSIS mandatory fish inspection program. During the transitional period, the Agency is exercising broad discretion in enforcing the new regulatory requirements, except when product is determined to be adulterated (
The final rule stated that during the transitional period, imported fish and fish products would be reinspected and subjected to species and residue testing on at least a quarterly basis for each foreign establishment eligible to export fish to the U.S. Further, as discussed in the preamble of the final rule, at the end of the 18-month transitional period, all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments would be reinspected, just as all imported meat and poultry products are reinspected (80 FR 75608). FSIS began selecting shipments of imported Siluriformes for reinspection and residue testing on April 15, 2016.
The explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115–31 Stat. 135, enacted May 5, 2017, directs FSIS to begin reinspecting all imported Siluriformes fish and fish product shipments upon the date the Act is enacted (
To apply for import reinspection, applicants, typically the Importer of Record, must submit a paper or an electronic inspection application form (FSIS Form 9540–1) to FSIS in advance of the shipment's arrival, but no later than when the entry is filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) (9 CFR 557.5). The applicant must identify, on the application, the official import inspection establishment where reinspection will occur. The paper import inspection application is available on line at:
After August 2, 2017, FSIS will begin taking action in regard to imported fish product that has bypassed FSIS import reinspection, but entered commerce,
FSIS will be posting reinspection guidance materials on its Siluriformes Web page
A list of Official Import Inspection Establishments available to reinspect Siluriformes fish is available on the FSIS Siluriformes Web page
FSIS also strongly encourages importers and brokers to communicate and coordinate closely with your FSIS District Office, to facilitate full compliance prior to August 2, 2017
In addition, the Agency will announce any additional information in the Agency's Constituent Update (
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
FSIS will announce this notice online through the FSIS Web page located at
FSIS will also make copies of this
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Final rule.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Improvement Act of 2016 requires each Federal agency to issue regulations implementing its statutory provisions. In this final rule, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends its regulations to comply with the statutory direction.
This rule is effective on July 26, 2017.
James Biggins, General Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2901, (202) 694–7000.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) implements the Freedom of Information Act through its regulations found at 10 CFR part 1703. This rule amends the DNFSB's regulations to incorporate certain changes made to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114–185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016)). The FOIA Improvement Act also requires agency regulations to address dispute resolution procedures and to provide notification to requestors about the availability of dispute resolution services. The FOIA Improvement Act requires the DNFSB to issue regulations which incorporate the changes made by the FOIA Improvement Act. This rule updates the DNFSB regulations in 10 CFR part 1703 to reflect those statutory changes.
The FOIA Improvement Act requires a change to the DNFSB's fee schedule, which will be updated in a separate notice. The fee schedule was last published in the
The FOIA Improvement Act requires agencies to designate a FOIA Public Liaison and also elevates the responsibility of the Chief FOIA Officer. Additionally the Act adds to the agency record reporting requirements. The DNFSB will provide this information through its FOIA electronic reading room. The Chief FOIA officer is the DNFSB Deputy General Manager, and will designate a FOIA Public Liaison. Information about how to contact the FOIA Public Liaison will be available through the DNFSB FOIA electronic reading room.
The DNFSB is issuing this rule as a final rule without the opportunity for public comment. The agency finds, for good cause, that allowing for notice and public comment is unnecessary. The changes made to the DNFSB implementing regulations reduce the burden on requestors, provide additional dispute resolution alternatives, and require the DNFSB to meet its response deadlines or waive the fees in whole or in part. The changes to the regulations are mandated by statute. The DNFSB has also reviewed public comments provided to other Federal agencies that have issued their regulations for public comment, and the DNFSB has used those comments to inform its regulations.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies must consider the impact of their rulemakings on “small entities” (small businesses, small organizations, and local governments). The DNFSB has reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule decreases the regulatory burden for requestors under FOIA, waives fees under certain circumstances, and provides additional dispute resolution options. Additionally, the agency received 21 FOIA requests in fiscal year 2016 and charged $0.00 in fees. The DNFSB therefore determines and certifies that these amendments to its FOIA implementing regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) establishes certain requirements when an agency conducts or sponsors a “collection of information.” 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations implementing FOIA are required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The amendments to the DNFSB regulations do not require or request information, but rather, explain the agency's FOIA procedures. Submitting a request for agency records under FOIA is voluntary, so the information collected from requestors is not covered by the restrictions of the PRA.
According to Executive Orders 12988 and 13132, agencies must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. The amendments to the agency's FOIA implementing regulations affect only FOIA requests submitted to the agency, and therefore, have no effect on preemption of State, tribal, or local government laws or otherwise have federalism implications.
This rule will not result in and is not likely to result in (A) an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets. As such, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The proposed regulations amend the DNFSB procedures for processing FOIA requests. The procedural changes to the FOIA implementing regulations will not result in significant impacts affecting the quality of the human environment, unavoidable adverse environmental effects, rejection of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, or irreversible or irretrievable commitments of environmental resources. The agency has not consulted with any other agencies in making this determination.
Paragraph (a) is revised to identify the transition from a physical public reading room to an electronic public reading room. The FOIA Improvement Act mandates that certain records previously made available to the public through a public reading room, now be available for public inspection in an electronic format. The DNFSB has been in the practice for several years to make its FOIA records publicly available in an electronic format on its public Web site (
The Board is removing this section as unnecessary. The Board will apply the exemptions allowed by the FOIA, as amended, in determining whether to withhold a document from disclosure pursuant to a FOIA request. The re-statement of the FOIA exemptions in its regulation does not expand or narrow the scope of the exemptions and is unnecessary for either implementation or interpretation.
The Board is amending this section to make explicit the waiver of fees if the Board does not meet its response deadlines under the FOIA Improvement Act.
The Board is amending this section to provide notice of availability of assistance from the agency FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services. The DNFSB will work with the Office of Government Information Services on any issue referred to them for alternative dispute resolution. The FOIA Improvement Act provides the right of a requestor to seek assistance with the FOIA request or to seek dispute resolution services. The section is also being amended to allow an appeal from an adverse decision on access within 90 days of the denial.
Freedom of information.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board amends 10 CFR Chapter 17, part 1703 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 2286b.
(a) The DNFSB will maintain an electronic reading room on its public Web site at
(b) The public records of the agency that are available in the electronic reading room or through links from the electronic reading room include:
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) The Board will not assess any fees if it has failed to meet its deadlines in § 1703.108.
(a)(1) A person whose request for access to records in whole or in part may appeal that determination to the General Counsel within 90 days of the determination. A person denied a fee waiver or reduction may appeal that determination to the General Counsel within 30 days. The person may also seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency. Appeals filed pursuant to this section must be in writing, directed to the General Counsel at the address indicated in § 1703.105(b)(2), and clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.” Such an appeal received by the Board not addressed and marked as indicated in this paragraph will be so addressed and marked by Board personnel as soon as it is properly identified and then will be forwarded to the General Counsel.
(2) The General Counsel shall make a determination with respect to any appeal within 20 working days after the receipt of such appeal. If, on appeal, the denial of the request for records or fee reduction is in whole or in part upheld, the General Counsel shall notify the person making such request of the provisions for judicial review of that determination.
(3) The requestor may request that the FOIA Public Liaison refer the denial to be reviewed through dispute resolution services or may request the Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and Records Administration to review the denial.
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).
Interim final rule with request for comments; correcting amendments.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC or Council) is correcting an interim final rule announcing revisions and additions to its information disclosure regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA Regulations). This interim final rule replaces the interim final rule published in the
Effective July 3, 2017. Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this interim final rule, identified by “Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council: Docket No. FFIEC–2017–0002,” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Judith Dupre, Executive Secretary, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, via telephone: (703) 516–5590, or via email:
The Council
The Council is also correcting technical and typographical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were last revised and published as a final rule in the
The Council initially published a final rule announcing the above changes on December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94937), and is hereby correcting that interim final rule to allow for a public comment period and to implement the changes set forth below.
This interim final rule amends the Council's FOIA Regulations in 12 CFR 1101.4, as described below.
To implement the mandatory requirements made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is revising § 1101.4(a) to clarify that the Council records available for public inspection pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) include records released for a FOIA request three or more times or that are likely to become the subject of subsequent FOIA requests, and that such records will be made available in electronic format.
In accordance with the amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act, the Council is also revising § 1101.4(b)(1) and (2) to reflect that information will only be withheld if the Council reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law, and to reflect that the deliberative process privilege only protects records that were created less than 25 years before the date when the records were requested.
In order to implement the recent amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act and prior amendments to the FOIA, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(A) to provide that, whenever the Council extends the 20-day response time for a FOIA request by more than ten working days due to unusual circumstances, the Council's FOIA Public Liaison is available to assist the requester in modifying the scope of their FOIA request and that the requester may seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services (“OGIS”) or from the Council's FOIA Public Liaison.
The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(
To implement the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA with respect to appeals, the Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(3)(v)(B)(
The Council is amending § 1101.4(b)(4)(i) to reflect that records will also be made available to requesters for public inspection in electronic format as required by the FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA.
The FOIA Improvement Act's amendments to the FOIA restrict an agency's ability to charge search or duplication fees in certain circumstances. The Council is revising § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii) introductory text and (b)(5)(ii)(G) to reflect the statutory restrictions on charging fees.
In § 1101.4(b)(5)(ii)(E), the Council is replacing the words “Council personnel” with “the Council's FOIA Public Liaison,” in order to identify a specific point of contact whom members of the public can contact.
The Council is also correcting three technical errors that occurred when the Council's FOIA Regulations were revised in 2010. Section 1101.4(b)(5)(iii)(A) and (b)(5)(iv) were both amended as published in a final rule in the
The Committee invites comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.
Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), notice and comment are not required prior to the issuance of a final rule if an agency, for good cause, finds that “notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” As discussed above, this interim final rule implements the substantive amendments made by the FOIA Improvement Act. Congress provided Federal agencies with no discretion in amending their information disclosure regulations to comply with the statutory amendments made to the FOIA, and required that such conforming amendments become effective by December 27, 2016. Additionally, the three revisions fixing prior publishing errors are merely technical corrections to provisions that were already subject to public notice and the opportunity to comment. The other revisions bring the language of the Council's FOIA Regulations into alignment with the more expansive language of the FOIA, reflect the Council's current procedures, and provide the public with expanded benefits.
Given that the substantive amendments to the Council's FOIA Regulations are mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act and were required to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Public. Law. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12, 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all rules published after January 1, 2000. In light of this requirement, the Council has sought to present the interim final rule in a simple, comprehensible, and straightforward manner. The Council invites comment on whether the Council could take additional steps to make the rule easier to understand.
FOIA exemptions, Freedom of information, Schedule of fees, Waivers or reductions of fees.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Council amends 12 CFR part 1101 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552; 12 U.S.C. 3307.
(a)
(2) Under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), policies and interpretations adopted by the Council, including instructions to Council staff affecting members of the public are available for public inspection in an electronic format at the office of the Executive Secretary of the Council, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B–7081a, Arlington, VA, 22226–3550, during regular business hours. Policies and interpretations of the Council may be withheld from disclosure under the principles stated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, are available for public inspection in an electronic format if they:
(i) Have been released to any person under paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii)(A) Because of the nature of their subject matter, the Council determines that they have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or
(B) They have been requested three or more times.
(4) An index of the records referred to in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section is available for public inspection in an electronic format.
(b)
(i) A record, or portion thereof, which is specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and which is, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order.
(ii) A record, or portion thereof, relating solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
(iii) A record, or portion thereof, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552b), provided that such statute:
(A) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or
(B) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld.
(iv) A record, or portion thereof, containing trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.
(v) An intra-agency or interagency memorandum or letter that would not be routinely available by law to a private party in litigation, including, but not limited to, memoranda, reports, and other documents prepared by the personnel of the Council or its constituent agencies, and records of deliberations of the Council and discussions of meetings of the Council, any Council Committee, or Council staff, that are not subject to 5 U.S.C. 552b (the Government in the Sunshine Act). In applying this exemption, the Council will not withhold records based on the deliberative process privilege if the records were created 25 years or more before the date on which the records were requested.
(vi) A personnel, medical, or similar record, including a financial record, or any portion thereof, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(vii) Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, to the extent permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7), including records relating to a proceeding by a financial institution's State or Federal regulatory agency for the issuance of a cease-anddesist order, or order of suspension or removal, or assessment of a civil money penalty and the granting, withholding, or revocation of any approval, permission, or authority.
(viii) A record, or portion thereof, containing, relating to, or derived from an examination, operating, or condition report prepared by, or on behalf of, or for the use of any State or Federal agency directly or indirectly responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
(ix) A record, or portion thereof, which contains or is related to geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
(2)
(3)
(A) By sending a letter to: FFIEC, Attn: Executive Secretary, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B–708la, Arlington, VA, 22226–3550. Both the mailing envelope and the request should be marked “Freedom of Information Request,” “FOIA Request,” or the like; or
(B) By facsimile clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Request,” “FOIA Request,” or the like to the Executive Secretary at (703) 562–6446; or
(C) By email to the address provided on the FFIEC's World Wide Web page, found at:
(ii)
(A) The name and mailing address of the requester, an electronic mail address, if available, and the telephone number at which the requester may be reached during normal business hours;
(B) A statement as to whether the information is intended for commercial use, and whether the requester is an educational or noncommercial scientific institution, or news media representative; and
(C) A statement agreeing to pay all applicable fees, or a statement identifying any desired fee limitation, or a request for a waiver or reduction of fees that satisfies paragraph (b)(5)(ii)(H) of this section.
(iii)
(iv)
(
(
(B) The requester's statement must be certified to be true and correct to the best of the person's knowledge and belief and explain in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing.
(C) The formality of the certification required to obtain expedited treatment may be waived by the Executive Secretary as a matter of administrative discretion.
(v)
(B) In response to a request that reasonably describes the records sought and otherwise satisfies the requirements of this section, a search shall be conducted of records in existence and maintained by the Council on the date of receipt of the request, and a review made of any responsive information located. The Executive Secretary shall notify the requester of:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(vi)
(A) By sending a letter to: FFIEC, Attn: Executive Secretary, 3501 Fairfax Drive, Room B–7081a, Arlington, VA, 22226–3550. Both the mailing envelope and the request should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like; or
(B) By facsimile clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like to the Executive Secretary at (703) 562–6446; or
(C) By email with the subject line marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal,” “FOIA Appeal,” or the like to
(vii)
(4)
(ii) When delivery to the requester is to be made, copies of requested records shall be sent to the requester by regular U.S. mail to the address indicated in the request, unless the Executive Secretary deems it appropriate to send the documents by another means.
(iii) The Council shall provide a copy of the record in any form or format requested if the record is readily reproducible by the Council in that form or format, but the Council need not provide more than one copy of any record to a requester.
(iv) By arrangement with the requester, the Executive Secretary may elect to send the responsive records electronically if a substantial portion of the records is in electronic format. If the information requested is subject to disclosure under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, it will not be sent by electronic means unless reasonable security measures can be established.
(5)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(ii)
(A)
(
(
(B)
(C)
(
(
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(
(
(
(
(H)
(iii)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(A) The Council estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250. The Council will notify the requester of the likely cost and obtain satisfactory assurance of full payment where the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees, or require an advance payment of an amount up to the full estimated charges in the case of requesters with no history of payment; or
(B) A requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion. The Council may require the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest as provided in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section or demonstrate that he/she has, in fact, paid the fee, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Council begins to process a new request or a pending request from that requester.
(C) When the Council acts under paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(A) or (B) of this section, the administrative time limits prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA (
(6)
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notification; correction.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a document that appeared in the
July 3, 2017.
Lisa Granger, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9115,
In the
On page 16734, in the third column, the bulleted list of waivers of the Sanitary Transportation rule was published in an incorrect format. This document corrects that format to read as follows:
In accordance with the requirements of section 416 of the FD&C Act, by this notice we are waiving the following persons from the applicable requirements of the Sanitary Transportation rule:
1. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that hold valid permits and are inspected under the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments' Grade “A” Milk Safety Program, only when engaged in transportation operations involving bulk and finished Grade “A” milk and milk products.
2. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are appropriately certified and are inspected under the requirements established by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference's NSSP, only when engaged in transportation operations involving molluscan shellfish in vehicles that are permitted by the State NSSP certification authority.
3. Businesses subject to the requirements of part 1, subpart O, that are permitted or otherwise authorized by the regulatory authority to operate a food establishment that provides food directly to consumers (
a. Receivers, whether the food is received at the establishment itself or at a location where the authorized establishment receives and immediately transports the food to the food establishment;
b. shippers and carriers in operations in which food is transported from the establishment as part of the normal business operations of a retail establishment, such as:
i. Delivery of the food directly to the consumer(s) by the authorized establishment or a third-party delivery service; or
ii. delivery of the food to another location operated by the authorized establishment or an affiliated establishment where the food is to be sold or served directly to the consumer(s).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Interim final rule; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the comment period for the interim final rule that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the interim final rule published May 4, 2017 (82 FR 20825). Submit either electronic or written comments by August 2, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017. The
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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Felicia B. Billingslea, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–820), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240–402–2371.
In the
We have received a request for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the interim final rule. The request conveyed concern that the current 60-day comment period does not allow sufficient time to develop a meaningful or thoughtful response to the interim final rule.
FDA has considered the request and is extending the comment period for the interim final rule for 30 days, until August 2, 2017. We believe that a 30-day extension allows adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying Agency action on these important issues.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the color additive regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of spirulina extract to seasonally color hard-boiled shell eggs at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice (GMP). This action is in response to a color additive petition (CAP) filed by McCormick & Company, Inc. (McCormick).
This rule is effective August 3, 2017. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule by August 2, 2017. See section IX for further information on the filing of objections.
You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017. The
Submit electronic objections in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection 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 objections submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Molly A. Harry, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1075.
In a notice published in the
Spirulina extract is currently approved under § 73.530 for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts, dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts, custards, puddings, cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), and coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract also is currently approved under 21 CFR 73.1530 for coloring coating formulations applied to drug tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with GMP. Spirulina extract is exempt from certification under section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379e(c)) because we previously determined that certification was not necessary for the protection of public health (78 FR 49117 at 49119, August 13, 2013).
The spirulina extract that is the subject of this final rule is a blue-colored powder produced by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of
Spirulina-derived ingredients have also been the subject of four notices submitted by firms to FDA informing us of their determinations that certain uses of these substances in food are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (78 FR 49117 at 49118). Under section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a substance that is GRAS for a particular use in food is not a food additive, and may lawfully be utilized for that use without our review and approval. There is no GRAS exemption, however, to the definition of color additive in section 201(t) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, we must approve the use of a color additive in food before it is marketed; otherwise the food containing the color additive is adulterated under section 402(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(c)). One GRAS
Under section 721(b)(4) of the FD&C Act, a color additive may not be listed for a particular use unless the data and information available to FDA establish that the color additive is safe for that use. Our color additive regulations at 21 CFR 70.3(i) define “safe” to mean that there is convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive. To establish with reasonable certainty that a color additive intended for use in foods is not harmful under its intended conditions of use, we consider the projected human dietary exposure to the color additive, the additive's toxicological data, and other relevant information (such as published literature) available to us. We compare an individual's estimated exposure, or estimated daily intake (EDI), of the color additive from all food sources to an acceptable daily intake level established by toxicological data. The EDI is determined by projections based on the amount of the color additive proposed for use in particular foods or drugs and on data regarding the amount consumed from all ingested sources of the color additive. We commonly use the EDI for the 90th percentile consumer of a color additive as a measure of high chronic exposure.
During our safety review of this petition (CAP 6C0306), we considered the projected human dietary exposure to spirulina extract and to phycocyanins (the principal coloring components) from the petitioned use and from currently permitted uses of spirulina extract in foods and ingested drugs. McCormick submitted an exposure estimate for spirulina extract and for phycocyanins for the petitioned use of spirulina extract based on a worst-case scenario that presumed that spirulina extract could potentially migrate from the outside of the egg shell to the edible portion of the egg. McCormick estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs would result in an exposure to spirulina extract of 8.8 milligrams per person per day (mg/p/d) at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). McCormick also estimated that the petitioned use of spirulina extract would result in an exposure to phycocyanins of 1.9 mg/p/d at the 90th percentile for the U.S. population aged 2 years and older (Ref. 2). Despite providing this worst-case estimate, McCormick noted that egg shells are not consumed and demonstrated that the spirulina extract applied to the outside of an egg shell generally does not migrate through the shell and the outer and inner membranes separating the shell from the edible portion of the egg. For these reasons, McCormick asserted that the amount of spirulina extract that would actually be found on the edible portion of an egg would be negligible, resulting in a 0.17 percent increase of the cumulative estimated daily intake (CEDI) for phycocyanins (Ref. 2). The previously estimated upper bound CEDI for phycocyanins from all GRAS-notified uses of spirulina extract in food is 1,140 mg/p/day or 19 milligrams per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg bw/d) for a 60 kg individual based on uses addressed in GRN 000424 (Ref. 3). We agree that McCormick's exposure estimate is sufficiently conservative. We conclude that the exposure to spirulina extract and phycocyanins resulting from the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is negligible, and that the petitioned use would not result in a significant contribution to the CEDI for phycocyanins (Ref. 2).
To support the safety of the proposed use of spirulina extract to color the shells of hard-boiled eggs, McCormick referenced the safety determinations made by FDA for CAPs 2C0293 (78 FR 49117, August 13, 2013), 2C0297 (79 FR 20095, April 11, 2014), and 4C0300 (80 FR 50762, August 21, 2015). McCormick also conducted a search of the peer-reviewed scientific literature for animal and human oral consumption studies that tested spirulina, spirulina-derived ingredients, and phycocyanins that were published between January 1, 2014, and July 20, 2016. McCormick submitted to us the published animal and human studies that they identified as being relevant to their petition. We evaluated the submitted safety information and additional studies that we identified as relevant and concluded that this information does not raise any safety concerns (Refs. 4 and 5).
In our previous evaluation of the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in foods (80 FR 50762), we did not have any concerns regarding the safety of the use of spirulina extract and its major coloring components, phycocyanins. Taking into account all the available safety information and the estimated exposure to phycocyanins from the petitioned use, we conclude that the proposed use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe (Ref. 5).
We discussed the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins in our final rule for the use of spirulina extract as a color additive in candy and chewing gum (78 FR 49117 at 49119). Based on the comparison of the known amino acid sequences of phycocyanins with the sequences of known protein allergens, we determined that there is a low probability that phycocyanins are protein allergens. We therefore concluded that the spirulina phycocyanins present an insignificant allergy risk. Additionally, after a review of the literature relevant to the potential allergenicity of spirulina phycocyanins, we have determined that spirulina phycocyanins still present an insignificant allergy risk (Refs. 4–7). We are not aware of any new information that would cause us to change this conclusion.
Based on the data and information in the petition and other relevant material, we conclude that the petitioned use of spirulina extract to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs is safe. We further conclude that the color additive will achieve its intended technical effect and is suitable for the petitioned use. Consequently, we are amending the color additive regulations in part 73 (21 CFR part 73) as set forth in this document. In addition, based upon the factors listed in 21 CFR 71.20(b), we continue to conclude that certification of spirulina extract is not necessary for the protection of the public health.
In accordance with § 71.15 (21 CFR 71.15), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see
We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as stated in the September 16, 2016,
This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Our review of this petition was limited to section 721 of the FD&C Act. This final rule is not a statement regarding compliance with other sections of the FD&C Act. For example, section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act prohibits the introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that contains a drug approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a biological product licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), or a drug or biological product for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and their existence has been made public, unless one of the exemptions in section 301(ll)(1) to (ll)(4) of the FD&C Act applies. In our review of this petition, we did not consider whether section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act or any of its exemptions apply to food containing this color additive. Accordingly, this final rule should not be construed to be a statement that a food containing this color additive, if introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, would not violate section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act. Furthermore, this language is included in all color additive final rules that pertain to food and therefore should not be construed to be a statement of the likelihood that section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act applies.
This rule is effective as shown in the
Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at
The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see
Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 73 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.
(c)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the 3rd Street Drawbridge across China Basin, mile 0.0, at San Francisco, CA. The deviation is necessary to allow participants to cross the bridge, uninterrupted, during the San Francisco Marathon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position during the deviation period.
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2017.
The docket for this deviation [USCG–2017–0538], is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone 510–437–3516; email
The City of San Francisco has requested a temporary change to the operation of the 3rd Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 3 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal if at least one hour notice is given, as required by 33 CFR 117.149. Navigation on the waterway is recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. on July 23, 2017, to allow participants to cross the bridge, uninterrupted, during the San Francisco Marathon. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the West Bay Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 0.1 at Westhampton Beach, New York. This action is necessary to complete rehabilitation of the bascule leaves of the drawbridge. The deviation will allow the bridge to open only one bascule span in order to provide passage for vessels requiring an opening.
This deviation is effective from 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on March 30, 2018.
The docket for this deviation, USCG–2017 –0325, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212–514–4334, email
The Suffolk County Department of Public Works, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to facilitate reconstruction of the bascule leaves.
The West Bay Bridge across the Quantuck Canal, mile 0.1, at Westhampton Beach, New York is a double-leaf bascule bridge offering mariners a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water and 13.3 feet at mean low water in the closed position. Horizontal clearance is 50 feet. Utilization of a work barge placed underneath one of the bascule leaves will reduce horizontal clearance to 25 feet. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(d).
This temporary deviation will allow the Beach Lane Bridge to open only one of the two bascule spans for bridge openings from 12:01 a.m. on October 2, 2017 to 11:59 p.m. on March 30, 2018. Dual lift span operations will be available, provided 48 hours of advance notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge.
The majority of vessels requiring bridge openings are sailing vessels and yachts transiting the waterway. Discussion with the proprietor of the Modern Yachts Marina located in the vicinity of the bridge confirms typical recreational traffic will continue to be able to proceed through the navigation opening of the bridge during one-leaf operations. Moreover, the bulk of recreational traffic that utilizes the waterway is largely seasonal in nature, peaking during the late spring, summer and early autumn months. Little to no recreational traffic transits the Quantuck Canal throughout the winter. Small scale tug/barge combinations occasionally transit the Quantuck Canal, but such commercial craft are generally limited in size. Mariners concur that the requirement to provide the bridge owner 48 hours of advance notice for dual lift span operations will not impede overall operations.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is an alternate route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at Hempstead, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position.
This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, USCG–2017–0356, is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212–514–4334, email
The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with concurrence of the bridge owner, the New York State Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.
The Wantagh Parkway Bridge, mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, has a vertical clearance of 20 feet at mean high water and 21.8 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulation is listed at 33 CFR 117.5.
The temporary deviation will allow the Wantagh Parkway Bridge to remain closed from 9 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to the proposed short-term closure of the draw.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display in Cornucopia, WI from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017. This action is necessary to protect participants and spectators during the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(4) and (b) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017, for the Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display safety zone, located in § 165.943(a)(4).
If you have questions on this document, call or email LT John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (218) 725–3818, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Cornucopia 4th of July Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(4) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. on July 1, 2017 on all waters of Siskiwit Bay bounded by the arc of a circle with a 420-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with it center in position 46°51′35″ N., 091°06′15″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or via telephone at (715) 779–5100. This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Saint Lawrence River, Alexandria
This rule is effective from 10:45 p.m. until 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716–843–9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 10:45 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River; Alexandria Bay, NY contained within a 350-foot radius of position 44°20′32.8″ N., 075°55′02.71″ W. (NAD 83). The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Garlock Wedding fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771 Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie at Cahoon Memorial Park, Bay Village, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Bay Village Independence Day Celebration fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216–937–0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 560 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks display is happening.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 04, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 560 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting one hour that will prohibit entry within 560 feet of the launch area for the fireworks display. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display in Duluth, MN from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017. This action is necessary to protect participants and spectators during the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(3) and (b) will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, for the Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display safety zone, located in § 165.943(a)(3).
If you have questions on this document, call or email LT John Mack, Chief of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (218) 725–3818, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual Duluth 4th Fest Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.943(a)(3) and (b) from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017 on all waters of the Duluth Harbor Basin bounded by the arc of a circle with a 840-foot radius from the fireworks launch site with its center in position 46°46′14″ N., 092°06′16″ W.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Duluth or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port's designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at (218) 529–3100.
This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.943 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of Lake Erie at Lakewood Park, Lakewood, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Lakewood Independence Day fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216–937–0124, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with vessels in the vicinity of firework displays on July 04, 2017 will be a safety concern for vessels and spectators within a 420 foot radius of the launch point of the fireworks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety
This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:45 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 420 feet of the launch point of the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor during Canalside's 4th of July Celebration fireworks display on July 4, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716–843–9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect mariners and vessels from the hazards associated with a maritime fireworks display. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard also finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 4, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor; Buffalo, NY within a 560-foot radius of position 42°52′10.75″ N., 078°52′56.01″ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Buffalo Outer Harbor during the Thunder on the Outer Harbor boat races. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with high speed boat races.
This rule is effective from 9:45 a.m. on July 22, 2017 until 4:15 p.m. on July 23, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716–843–9322, email
On May 11, 2017, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Thunder on the Outer Harbor; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY § 165.T09–0331. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this high speed boat race. The comment period ended June 16, 2017; we received no comments.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a high speed boat races present significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include vessels reaching high speeds in a relatively small area and large wake. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the boat races are taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on June 22 and June 23, 2017, from 9:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. daily. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY starting at position 42°52′21″ N. and 078°53′14″ W. then West to 42°52′15″ N. and 078°53′32″ W. then South to
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. In addition, the safety zone will have built in times to allow vessels to travel through when races are not being held. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023–01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology (RACT) approval for a volatile organic compound (VOC) emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
This direct final rule will be effective September 1, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 2, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0025 at
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 617–918–1584, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
Section 184(b) of the CAA requires Rhode Island to implement RACT for all major sources of VOCs and all sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted RACT Approval File No. 01–05–AP as a SIP revision for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP. RACT Approval File No. 01–05–AP was originally issued to TPI Composites Incorporated (currently owned and operated by US Watercraft, LLC) in Warren, Rhode Island. The RACT Approval was received by EPA on August 8, 2003, and amended shortly thereafter. The amendment was received by EPA on February 20, 2004.
US Watercraft, LLC is located at 373 Market Street, Warren, Rhode Island,
It should be noted that subsequent to RI DEM's submittal of its SIP revision and amendment for US Watercraft in 2003 and 2004, respectively, EPA later issued a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58481). RI DEM has not yet addressed this CTG. On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA issued a Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Rhode Island's failure to submit a SIP revision to satisfy the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.
At this time, EPA is taking no action with regard to Rhode Island's obligation to address the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials since Rhode Island has not yet taken formal action to address this CTG. In this action, we are approving the revised RACT Approval for US Watercraft as meeting the section 110(l) anti-back sliding requirement of the CAA and incorporating it into the SIP as SIP-strengthening. Rhode Island is still obligated to submit a formal SIP revision to EPA detailing how the state is addressing the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG for any and all sources in the state covered by that CTG.
EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, a RACT Approval effective July 16, 2003, and a RACT Approval amendment effective February 11, 2004, for US Watercraft, LLC (formerly known as TPI Composites or Tillotson-Pearson). EPA is also removing the previously approved consent agreement for this facility from the Rhode Island SIP.
The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
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 RACT Approval for US Watercraft, LLC described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 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, 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 Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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
• Does not provide 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 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 September 1, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(d)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of providing for attainment of the 2010 primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO
This rule will be effective August 2, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification Nos. EPA–R04–OAR–
Twunjala Bradley, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9352. Ms. Bradley can also be reached via electronic mail at
On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO
On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, “Guidance for 1-Hour SO
Florida submitted attainment demonstrations for both Areas on April 3, 2015. On August 23, 2016, EPA proposed to approve Florida's April 3, 2015, SO
The three sets of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area were from the Arizona Mining Association (AMA), Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, INC. (FCG), and Tampa Electric Company (TECO). The single set of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Nassau Area was received from the AMA. EPA will refer to the AMA, FCG, and TECO Commenters collectively as “the Commenter(s).” Notably, the Commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed approvals of Florida's SO
In the SO
The SO
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO
For plans for SO
EPA recognizes that some sources may have highly variable emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the critical emission value, which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario, the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit well below the critical emission value. In an “average year,” compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three exceedance days (
As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO
This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of the SO
The question then becomes whether this approach—which is likely to produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value—meets the requirement in sections 110(a) and 172(c) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO
For these reasons, the Commenter's statement that “the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value” is not perfectly consistent with the EPA's position. Presuming that the Commenter means to speak of NAAQS violations rather than single exceedances of the level of the NAAQS, the use of longer-term limits creates an arguable (albeit minimal) risk of violations that nominally does not exist with short-term limits, even though compliance with an appropriately adjusted longer-term limit is likely to yield fewer exceedances of the level of the NAAQS than compliance with a short-term limit. Thus, the Commenter's statement misrepresents EPA's rationale for approving the longer-term average limits in Florida's plans as providing for attainment.
The SO
Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of EPA's
As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour primary SO
The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on “Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO
The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plans with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a “reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with the purposes of the CAA.” The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach is “scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.”
Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the longer average limits established for Rayonier and WestRock in the Nassau Area and Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area provide for a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for these sources. Florida used a suitable data profile in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding emission limits that have comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the longer-term averaging limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limits compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. See FL DEP's April 4, 2015 attainment SIPs for both areas in the docket for this final action (EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0624 & EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0623).
However, the issue of whether the use of a longer term average limit is the only way under which sources could meet the 1-hour NAAQS and account for variability during startup and shutdown periods is not raised by Florida's SIP submittals, and EPA need not reach a conclusion on that issue here in approving Florida's SIP submittals.
Pursuant to CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192, EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's attainment plan SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO
In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Florida attainment plan for both the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas includes: An emissions inventory for SO
Based on the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890003–046–AC), WestRock will reduce SO
Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570008–080–AC, Mosaic will reduce SO
Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570039–074–AC, TECO will reduce SO
EPA has determined that the attainment plans for SO
EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as the particular information in Florida's April 3, 2015, attainment SIP, the EPA believes, that the 24-hour and 30-day average limits for Mosaic and TECO respectively for the Hillsborough Area and the 3-hour average limit for WestRock and Rayonier in the Nassau Area provide for attainment of the 1-hour SO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Florida's SIP the specified, new operating parameters, SO
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 CAA; and
• does not provide 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 1, 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.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42.U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revising the format for materials submitted by New Jersey that have been incorporated by reference (IBR) into its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The regulations and other materials affected by this format change have all been previously submitted by New Jersey and approved by EPA as SIP revisions.
This format revision will primarily affect the “Identification of plan” section as well as the format of the SIP materials that will be available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the EPA Region 2 Office. EPA is also adding a table in the “Identification of plan” section, which summarizes the approval actions that EPA has taken on the regulatory and non-regulatory portions of the New Jersey SIP.
This rule is effective on July 3, 2017.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866; or the National Archives and Records Administration. Please contact the person identified in the
Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3716.
In accordance with Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7410, each state has a SIP containing the control measures and strategies to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established pursuant to Section 109 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7409. SIPs contain numerous elements such as air pollution control regulations, emission inventories, monitoring networks, attainment demonstrations, and enforcement mechanisms.
Before formally adopting rules that contain required control measures and strategies as part of a SIP, each state must provide the public with an opportunity to comment on them. The states then submit these rules to EPA as requested SIP revisions, on which EPA must formally act.
If and when these control measures and strategies are approved by EPA after notice and comment rulemaking, they become enforceable by EPA, and are incorporated into the federally approved SIP and identified in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) (40 CFR part 52). The actual state regulations approved by EPA are not reproduced in their entirety in 40 CFR part 52, but are “incorporated by reference,” which has the same effect as including the entire state regulation in part 52. Incorporation by reference indicates that EPA has approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date, and that EPA, in addition to the state, may enforce that regulation once it takes effect and is formally a part of the SIP. This format allows both EPA and the public to know which state measures are contained in a given SIP and are therefore federally enforceable. It also helps identify the specific requirements that the state is implementing to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
The SIP is periodically revised as necessary to address the specific or unique air pollution problems in the state. Therefore, EPA from time to time takes action on state SIP submissions containing new and/or revised regulations and other materials; if approved, they become part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).
As a result, EPA began the process of developing the following: (1) A revised SIP document for each state that would be incorporated by reference under the provisions of title 1 CFR part 51; (2) a revised mechanism for announcing EPA approval of revisions to an applicable SIP and updating both the IBR document and the CFR; and (3) a revised format of the “Identification of plan” sections for each applicable subpart to reflect these revised IBR procedures. The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures, and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997,
The federally approved regulations, source-specific requirements, and nonregulatory provisions (entirely or portions of) submitted by each state agency and approved by EPA have been organized into a “SIP compilation.” The compilation is contained in three-ring binders and will be updated, primarily on an annual basis. The New Jersey SIP compilation is available at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office: 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007; (212) 637–4249.
Each SIP compilation contains three parts approved by EPA: Part one contains regulations, part two contains source-specific requirements, and part three contains nonregulatory provisions. Each state's SIP compilation contains a table of identifying information for each of these three parts. In this action, EPA is publishing the tables summarizing the applicable SIP requirements for New Jersey. The effective dates in the tables indicate the date of the most recent state revision of each regulation. The EPA Region 2 Office has the primary responsibility for updating the compilation and ensuring its accuracy.
EPA's Region 2 Office developed and will maintain the compilation for New Jersey. A copy of the full text of New Jersey's regulatory and source-specific compilations will also be maintained at NARA.
In order to better serve the public, EPA revised the organization of the “Identification of plan” section and included additional information to clarify which provisions are the enforceable elements of the SIP. The revised Identification of plan section contains five subsections: (a) Purpose and scope, (b) Incorporation by reference, (c) EPA-approved regulations, (d) EPA-approved source-specific requirements, and (e) EPA-approved nonregulatory provisions such as transportation control measures, statutes, control strategies, and monitoring networks.
All revisions to the applicable SIP become federally enforceable as of the effective date of the revisions to paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of the applicable Identification of plan section found in each subpart of 40 CFR part 52.
To facilitate enforcement of previously approved SIP provisions and provide a smooth transition to the new SIP compilation, EPA has retained the original Identification of plan section, previously appearing in the CFR as the first or second section of part 52 for each state subpart. After an initial two-year period, EPA will review its experience with the new table format and will decide whether or not to retain the historical Identification of plan appendices for some further period.
This rule constitutes a reformatting exercise to ensure that all revisions to the state programs and accompanying SIP that have already occurred are accurately reflected in 40 CFR part 52. State SIP revisions are subject to the EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51. When EPA receives a formal SIP revision request, the Agency must publish its proposed rulemaking in the
EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA. This rule simply reorganizes and codifies provisions that are already in effect as a matter of law in Federal and approved state programs. Accordingly, we find that public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” under section 553 of the APA, since the reorganization and codification of the revised format for denoting IBR of the state materials into the SIP only reflects existing law and since immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations from the CFR.
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 New Jersey regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the New Jersey SIP compilations previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” reorganization update action for the State of New Jersey.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 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
(a) This section identifies the original “Air Implementation Plan for the State of New Jersey” and all revisions submitted by New Jersey that were Federally approved prior to October 1, 2016.
(a)
(b)
(2) EPA Region 2 certifies that the materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to October 1, 2016 at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update definitions and make administrative edits to regulations for the Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) and Florida's Small Business Assistance program (SBA). EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on July 1, 2011, to update definitions and make administrative edits to PALs and the SBA. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This direct final rule is effective September 1, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 2, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0166 at
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
On July 1, 2011, FDEP submitted to EPA for approval a SIP revision that involves changes to Florida's regulations related to permitting and administrative procedures, among other changes. In this action, EPA is approving the portions of the Florida submission that make changes to definitions affecting the major New Source Review (NSR) program, changes to other miscellaneous definitions, and administrative changes to Florida's NSR PAL provisions and SBA program. Florida's NSR program, which applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source in areas designated as attainment or unclassifiable as required by part C and part D of title I of the CAA, is modified with this direct final action at Rule 62–210.200, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), “Definitions,” and 62–212.720, “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs).” EPA is also approving miscellaneous changes to definitions. Finally, EPA is approving the portion of the July 1, 2011, submission that revises Rule 62–210.220, “Small Business Assistance Program,” which provides for compliance assistance for qualifying small business stationary sources.
Changes in the July 1, 2011, submission made to Rule 62–212.400, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration,” were approved on June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35862). The June 15, 2012, final rule also approved the NSR definition of “major modification,” at Rule 62–210.200(186) included in the July 1, 2011, SIP submission.
At this time, the Agency is not acting on the following changes included in the July 1, 2011, submission at Rule 62–210.200, “Definitions”: (28), “animal crematory,” (41), “biological waste,” (42), “biological waste incinerator,” (44), “biomedical waste,” and (158), “human crematory.” EPA is also not acting on the changes made to rules in Chapter 62–296, “Stationary Sources—Emission Standards,” included in the July 1, 2011, submission. EPA will consider these remaining portions of the July 1, 2011, submission in a separate action.
This direct final action will update Florida's definitions and make changes to rules approved into the SIP. Changes made to definitions are related to basic definitions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors and minor edits to permitting and NSR terms. Definitions are also partly renumbered with the July 1, 2011, submission. The changes made to the regulations, other than definitions, are administrative in nature, including updating internal references.
Florida's July 1, 2011, SIP revision makes changes to definitions for criteria air pollutants and their precursors. Florida adds a definition at Rule 62–210.200(211) for “nitrogen oxides” to be consistent with EPA regulations, referencing test methods at 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 60 (40 CFR part 60). The July 1, 2011, SIP submittal revises the definition of “PM
The July 1, 2011, SIP revision made changes to definitions related to NSR to correct typographical errors, to make internal references consistent, renumber definitions, and make minor administrative edits. Florida changed the definition of “best available control technology,” at Rule 62–210.200(40), by correcting a typographical error carried over from a previous revision. No substantive change was made to the SIP-approved definition, and the minor edits became state effective on October 12, 2008. The July 1, 2011, SIP revision also changed the definition of “federally enforceable,” at Rule 62–210.200(136), renumbered from (124), to clarify citations to rules under which federally enforceable permits are issued or were historically issued. This change to “federally enforceable” became state effective on February 11, 1999. Florida also revised the definition of “modification” at Rule 62–210.200(199), renumbered from (183), to remove references to non-SIP related uses of the term. In addition to removing references to 40 CFR part 60 (New Source Performance Standards), 40 CFR part 61 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants), and CAA section 112 (Hazardous Air Pollutants), a reference to 40 CFR part 52 (Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans) is removed from this definition. However, the remaining portion of the SIP-approved definition is nonetheless consistent with the definition as used under 40 CFR part 52. This change became state effective on February 11, 1999. The Florida submittal revises the definition of “net emissions increase” at Rule 62–210.200(204), renumbered from (179) and state effective on October 12, 2008, to correct typographical errors and to remove numbered citations to other definitions within Rule 62–210.200, adding explicit references for “actual emissions” and “baseline actual emissions” within the definition instead. No substantive changes are made to the definition of “net emissions increase.” Florida also modifies the definition of “regulated air pollutant” at Rule 62–210.200(255), renumbered from (237), to make an administrative edit that corrected “any volatile organic compound” to “volatile organic compounds” to be consistent with EPA use of the collective term. This change to “regulated air pollutant” became state effective on October 12, 2008. Finally, the July 1, 2011, submittal revises the definition of “significant impact” at Rule 62–210.200(275), renumbered from (253) and state effective on November 13, 1997, to correct a typographical error. Florida's definition of “significant impact” largely corresponds with EPA's provisions for significant impact levels (SILs) for pollutants impacting nonattainment areas at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(2), but Florida includes a SIL for lead, which has never been included in the federal provision. With this SIP revision, Florida is removing SILs under lead for 1-hour periods and 8-hour periods, which were carried over in error from the carbon monoxide SIL, as well as an additional typographical error. No substantive change is made to the SIP-approved definition.
EPA is approving these changes to definitions in the Florida SIP, which became state effective at the following dates as described above: November 13, 1997, February 11, 1999, and October 12, 2008. The renumbering of definitions, which is the final change to Rule 62–210.200 included in the SIP revision, became state effective on March 11, 2010.
The July 1, 2011, submittal makes changes to Florida's SBA program at Rule 62–210.220(2)(c) by updating
The July 1, 2011, submittal revises the PAL provisions only to correct an error at Rule 62–212.720(1). The introductory paragraph affected previously referenced a non-existent definition at Rule 62–210.200, and the reference was deleted. This revision is administrative in nature and became state effective on October 6, 2008. EPA is approving this change into the Florida SIP.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62–210.200, F.A.C. entitled “Definitions,” effective March 11, 2010, to add definitions and make administrative updates, Rule 62–210.220, F.A.C., entitled “Small Business Assistance Program,” effective October 6, 2008, to correct internal references, and Rule 62–210.720, F.A.C., entitled “Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs),” which corrects an error effective December 17, 2013.
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP because they are consistent with the CFR and the CAA. Because these changes are administrative and insignificant in nature, they are in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 1, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the Agency may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Are not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are 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
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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 CAA; and
• do not provide 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 1, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing action on four permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (“MCAQMD” or “the District”) portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of California pursuant to requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule and finalizing approval of the remaining three permitting rules. The amended
This rule will be effective on August 2, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket No. EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0726. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972–3534 or by email at
Throughout this document, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.
On December 27, 2016 (81 FR 95074), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval (LA/LD) or a full approval (as noted in the table) of the following rules that were submitted for incorporation into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP.
We proposed a full approval of Rules 1–130, 1–200 and 1–230 because we determined that these rules improve the SIP and are consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We proposed a limited approval of Rule 1–220 because we determined that the rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval of Rule 1–220 because some rule provisions conflict with part C of the Act. These provisions include the following:
A. Rule 1–220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W; therefore, the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(l) have not been meet.
B. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(1) and (2) have not been met because the rule does not include the necessary information about a source's obligations.
No comments were submitted. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of Rule 1–220 and a full approval of Rules 1–130, 1–200 and 1–230. This action incorporates the submitted rules into the Mendocino County portion of the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule 1–220.
As a result, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule within 24 months. EPA staff are coordinating with Mendocino County AQMD and expect resolution of the deficiencies before a FIP would be required.
In addition, because we are finalizing our proposed action, the California Infrastructure SIP deficiencies identified in our April 2016 (81 FR 18766) rulemaking with respect to Mendocino County AQMD for the 1997 and 2006 PM
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 MCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 September 1, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
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) * * *
(119) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Previously approved on June 18, 1982 in paragraph (c)(119)(ii)(A) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(489)(i)(A)(
(158) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Previously approved on July 31, 1985 in paragraph (c)(158)(i)(B) of this section and now deleted with replacement in paragraph (c)(489)(i)(A)(
(171) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
(385) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) [Reserved]
(489) Amended regulations for the following AQMD was submitted on November 15, 2016 by the Governor's Designee.
(i)
(
(
(
(
(b) * * *
(3) The PSD program for Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, as incorporated by reference in § 52.220(c)(489) is approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act. However, EPA is retaining authority to apply § 52.21 in certain cases. The provisions of § 52.21 except for paragraph (a)(1) are therefore incorporated and made a part of the State plan for California for the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District for:
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule.
The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to amend its regulations governing corporate credit unions (corporates) and the scope of their activities. Specifically, the proposed amendments revise provisions on retained earnings and Tier 1 capital.
Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods, but please send comments by one method only:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Yvonne Applonie, Director of Supervision, Office of National Examinations and Supervision, at the above address or telephone (703) 518–6595; or Marvin Shaw, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518–6553.
The financial crisis of 2007–2009 took a heavy toll on the corporate credit union system. The crisis, largely mortgage related, greatly affected the investment portfolios of many corporates causing widespread liquidity problems, instability in the system, and failures. During this time period, NCUA took extraordinary short and mid-term measures to stabilize the corporate system. Among other things, it: (1) Made capital injections; (2) approved the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Share Guarantee Program, which guaranteed uninsured shares at participating corporates; (3) engaged the services of an independent, highly qualified third party to conduct a comprehensive analysis of expected non-recoverable credit losses for distressed securities held by corporates; (4) conserved five corporates;
To provide longer term structural enhancements to the corporate system, the Board comprehensively revised part 704, the regulations governing corporates and their activities, in 2010.
The 2010 rule curtailed several of the practices that led to the referenced corporate failures. Specifically, it established investment concentration limits, limited asset maturities, and prohibited investments in subordinated and private label mortgage-backed securities. Most relevant to this proposal, the 2010 rule also implemented a prompt corrective action (PCA) regime stipulating capital adequacy for corporates. Largely based on the Basel I requirements, the capital requirements of the 2010 rule emphasized the importance of corporates holding tangible and durable capital.
It has been nearly seven years since the Board issued the 2010 rule. In that time, NCUA's efforts have had the intended effect of stabilizing the corporate system and improving the corporates' ability to function and provide needed services to natural person credit unions. Additionally, the overall economy has improved greatly, thereby improving the economic landscape in which corporates operate. Further, the large concentration of troubled assets within the corporate system has been reduced through portfolio repositioning or NCUA intervention. The corporate system has significantly contracted and consolidated, with assets declining from approximately $81.7 billion prior to the 2010 rule to approximately $24.9 billion today. In that same time period, the number of corporates has declined from 26 to 11. Given all of these positive developments, the Board believes conditions are such that it is now safe and appropriate to revisit the capital standards of the 2010 rule. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed amendments to the corporate rule primarily affect the calculation of capital after corporates consolidate and set a retained earnings ratio target in meeting PCA standards.
In 2015, the Board made further refinements to part 704. Specifically, the Board amended the definition of “Tier 1 capital” to include as a component of that term, the retained earnings acquired through a merger. Given that retained earnings acquired through a merger are currently not recorded on the continuing corporate's financial statements, the amount must be recorded outside of the financial statements. This approach does not follow Generally Accepted Accounting
More specifically, the current definition of “retained earnings” includes undivided earnings, regular reserve, reserve for contingencies, supplemental reserves, reserve for losses, and other appropriations from undivided earnings as designated by management or NCUA. Including “GAAP equity acquired in a merger” to that list gives recognition to standard accounting conventions for purposes of consolidating records between merged entities. As a practical matter, the Board has treated equity acquired in a merger as retained earnings, but did so in the context of defining contributed capital's ability to cover losses. The Board believes that expressly including such equity acquired in a merger as retained earnings and referencing GAAP will clarify that this capital is available to cover losses, enhance transparency, and reduce ambiguity.
Further, the Board proposes to delete the phrase “the retained earnings of any acquired credit union, or an integrated set of activities and assets, calculated at the point of acquisition, if the acquisition is a mutual combination” from the current definition of “Tier 1 capital.” This provision becomes redundant as a result of the expanded definition of retained earnings which will include GAAP equity acquired in a merger.
In addition to the Board's proposed amendments to the definitions of “retained earnings” and “Tier 1 capital” as discussed above, the Board also proposes to add a definition of “retained earnings ratio” to part 704.
The 2010 rule's PCA provisions require corporates to meet a leverage ratio.
The incentive to build retained earnings was created by limiting the amount of contributed capital permitted to be included in calculating the corporate's leverage ratio.
The 2010 revisions to part 704 have resulted in the intended effect. Specifically, all corporates have accumulated sufficient retained earnings to meet or exceed the adequate capitalization threshold under PCA through the October 2016 phase-in adjustment.
While the result has been positive, the Board recognizes that the language in the current rule is indirect and may disadvantage corporates working with third parties. The limitation on PCC for regulatory capital purposes does not recognize the full value of PCC that stands to absorb losses and protect counterparties. Further, the construct to reduce the inclusion of PCC as capital provides for inconsistent treatment compared to capital regulations governing other types of financial institutions, such as banks, and could promote confusion. Accordingly, the Board proposes to remove the requirement effective October 2020 to limit PCC counted as Tier 1 capital to the amount of retained earnings. Further, the Board proposes to permit a corporate to include in its Tier 1 capital all PCC that is sourced from an entity not covered by federal share insurance.
However, recognizing that retained earnings is critical to the health of the corporate system and the share insurance fund, the Board proposes to add a provision to part 704 requiring all corporates to achieve an eventual retained earnings ratio of 250 basis points. To that end, the Board proposes to add a definition of “retained earnings ratio” to mean “the corporate credit union's retained earnings divided by its moving daily average net assets.” Upon attaining this benchmark, a corporate would be permitted to include all PCC, regardless of source, in its Tier 1 capital. The PCA thresholds will remain at their current limits. Until such time as a corporate achieves a 250 basis points retained earnings ratio, it must deduct the amount of PCC exceeding retained earnings by 200 basis points as an inducement to build retained earnings.
The Board believes this proposal will promote clarity as to the minimum amount of retained earnings to be held by a corporate to account for potential losses. In setting this minimum standard, the Board balances it with the risk mitigating provisions of current part 704 including investment concentration limits, NEV volatility limits, asset maturity limits, and investment prohibitions. As such, the Board is not contemplating amending other
Appendix B to part 704 enumerates the expanded authorities available to corporates and the procedures that a corporate must follow to be granted such authorities. The Part I expanded investment authority allows a corporate to take on additional risk in certain investment products. As part of this authority, a corporate's NEV ratios may decline to specified amounts when meeting certain leverage ratios.
The Board proposes to add a “retained earnings ratio” requirement to the Part I expanded investment authorities. The Board believes that by doing so the retained earnings ratio requirement will limit the risk of the expanded investment portfolios. Specifically, the Board proposes to employ an indexed retained earnings requirement, which will correlate with the actual level of risk taking.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis of any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities (primarily those under $100 million in assets).
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden or increases an existing burden.
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order to adhere to fundamental federalism principles. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects 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. NCUA has, therefore, determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of § 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).
Credit unions, Corporate credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 23, 2017.
For the reasons discussed above, the National Credit Union Administration Board proposes to amend 12 CFR part 704 as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1766(a), 1781, 1789.
(1) Retained earnings;
(2) Perpetual contributed capital;
(3) Deduct the amount of the corporate credit union's intangible assets that exceed one half percent of its moving daily average net assets (however, NCUA may direct the corporate credit union to add back some of these assets on NCUA's own initiative, or NCUA's approval of petition from the applicable state regulator or application from the corporate credit union);
(4) Deduct investments, both equity and debt, in unconsolidated CUSOs;
(5) Deduct an amount equal to any PCC or NCA that the corporate credit union maintains at another corporate credit union;
(6) Deduct any amount of PCC received from federally insured credit unions that causes PCC minus retained earnings, all divided by moving daily average net assets, to exceed two percent when a corporate credit union's retained earnings ratio is less than two and a half percent.
(b)(1) * * *
(2) 28 percent if the corporate credit union has a seven percent minimum leverage ratio and a two and a half percent retained earnings ratio, and is specifically approved by NCUA; or
(3) 35 percent if the corporate credit union has an eight percent minimum leverage ratio and a three percent retained earnings ratio and is specifically approved by NCUA.
Federal Housing Finance Board; Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is proposing to adopt, with amendments, the regulations of the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) pertaining to the capital requirements for the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks). The proposed rule would carry over most of the existing regulations without material change, but would substantively revise the credit risk component of the risk-based capital requirement, as well as the limitations on extensions of unsecured credit. The principal revisions to those provisions would remove requirements that the Banks calculate credit risk capital charges and unsecured credit limits based on ratings issued by a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO), and would instead require that the Banks use their own internal rating methodology. The proposed rule also would revise the percentages used in the tables to calculate the credit risk capital charges for advances and non-mortgage assets. FHFA would retain the percentages used in the existing table to calculate the capital charges for mortgage-related assets, but intends to address the appropriate methodology for determining the credit risk capital charges for residential mortgage assets as part of a subsequent rulemaking.
FHFA must receive written comments on or before September 1, 2017. For additional information, see
You may submit your comments, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 2590–AA70, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Scott Smith, Associate Director, Office of Policy Analysis and Research,
FHFA invites comments on all aspects of the proposed rule and will take all comments into consideration before issuing a final rule. Copies of all comments will be posted without change, on the FHFA Web site at
Effective July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA)
The eleven Banks are wholesale financial institutions organized under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act).
In 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act)
The GLB Act also amended the Bank Act to impose on the Banks new total, leverage, and risk-based capital requirements similar to those applicable to depository institutions and other housing Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and directed the Finance Board to adopt regulations prescribing uniform capital standards for the Banks.
The GLB Act amendments to the Bank Act also defined the types of capital that the Banks must hold—specifically permanent and total capital. Permanent capital consists of amounts paid by members for Class B stock plus the Bank's retained earnings, as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
The Bank Act requires each Bank to hold total capital equal to at least 4 percent of its total assets. The statute separately requires each Bank to meet a leverage requirement of total capital to total assets equal to 5 percent, but provides that in determining compliance with this leverage requirement, a Bank must calculate its total capital by multiplying the amount of its permanent capital by 1.5 and adding to this product any other component of total capital.
Each Bank also must meet a risk-based capital requirement by maintaining permanent capital in an amount at least equal to the sum of its credit risk, market risk, and operational risk charges, as measured under the 2001 Finance Board regulations.
Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) requires federal agencies to: (i) Review regulations that require the use of an assessment of the creditworthiness of a security or money market instrument; and (ii) to the extent those regulations contain any references to, or requirements based on, NRSRO credit ratings, remove such references or requirements.
Several provisions of the Finance Board capital regulations include requirements that are based on NRSRO credit ratings, and thus must be revised to comply with the Dodd-Frank Act provisions related to use of NRSRO ratings.
FHFA is proposing to amend part 1277 of its regulations by adopting, with some revisions, the capital requirement regulations of the Finance Board, which are located at 12 CFR part 932.
A discussion of the specific changes that FHFA proposes to make to the Banks' current capital regulations as part of this rulemaking follows.
Most of the definitions in proposed § 1277.1 would be carried over without substantive change from current 12 CFR 930.1. FHFA, however, is proposing to define seven new terms, which are: “collateralized mortgage obligation;” “derivatives clearing organization;” “eligible master netting agreement;” “non-mortgage asset;” “non-rated asset;” “residential mortgage;” and “residential mortgage security.”
Three of the new terms FHFA proposes to define pertain to the mortgage-related assets that a Bank may hold, which are: “collateralized mortgage obligation,” “residential mortgage,” and “residential mortgage security.” These definitions are straightforward and are intended to be mutually exclusive. They will be used to assign the particular asset to the appropriate category of Table 1.4 that would be used to determine the capital charge for that asset. The term “residential mortgage” is intended to include those mortgage loans that the Banks may purchase as acquired member assets (AMA), and would include both whole loans and participation interests in such loans. These loans must be secured by a residential structure that contains one-to- four dwelling units. The proposed definition would encompass loans on individual condominium or cooperative units, as well as on manufactured housing, whether or not the manufactured housing is considered real property under state law. The definition would not include a loan secured by a multifamily property because the credit risk for such properties differs from loans secured by one-to-four family residences.
The term “residential mortgage security” includes any mortgage-backed security that represents an undivided interest in a pool of “residential mortgages,”
FHFA proposes to define “derivatives clearing organization” as an organization that clears derivatives contracts and is registered with either the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or is exempted by one of those two Commissions from such registration. The new definition is needed because, as is discussed below, the proposed credit risk capital provision and the proposed unsecured credit provision impose different requirements on derivatives contracts cleared by a derivatives clearing organization than they impose on those not so cleared.
FHFA proposes to define “non-rated asset” to include those assets that are currently addressed by Table 1.4 of Finance Board regulation 12 CFR 932.4, which are cash, premises, and plant and equipment, as well as certain investments described in the core mission activities regulation. Under the proposed rule the credit risk capital charges for “non-rated assets” would derive from proposed Table 1.3, which would be identical to Table 1.4 of the current regulation, both in terms of the assets covered by the table and the capital charges assigned to each category of assets within the table.
The proposed rule would define the term “non-mortgage asset” to include any assets held by a Bank other than advances covered by Table 1.1, all types of mortgage-related assets covered by Table 1.4, non-rated assets covered by Table 1.3, or derivatives contracts. As is discussed in much greater detail below, capital charges for “non-mortgage assets” would be calculated based on their stated maturity and a Bank's internal credit rating for the assets, using new proposed Table 1.2. The
The proposed rule also would add a definition for “eligible master netting agreement.” FHFA would define the term by reference to the definition for the term recently adopted in the FHFA rule governing margin and capital requirements for covered swap entities.
As noted above, FHFA proposes to re-adopt current § 932.2 and § 932.3 of the Finance Board regulations as § 1277.2 and § 1277.3 without change. Proposed § 1277.2 is identical to the existing regulation and would set forth the minimum total capital and leverage ratios that each Bank must maintain under section 6(a)(2) of the Bank Act.
FHFA is proposing changes to the current credit risk capital provision, now set forth at 12 CFR 932.4 of the Finance Board regulations. The principal revisions include changing how a Bank determines the CRPRs used to calculate capital charges for its internally rated non-mortgage assets, derivatives contracts, and off-balance sheet items (under proposed Table 1.2), and for its residential mortgage assets (under proposed Table 1.4). In both cases, a Bank would no longer base the charge on an NRSRO credit rating, but on a credit rating that the Bank calculates internally. The proposal also would update the CRPRs used to calculate the applicable capital charges for advances and non-mortgage assets, and would change the frequency of a Bank's calculation of its credit risk capital charges from monthly to quarterly.
Proposed § 1277.4(h), which addresses the calculation of credit equivalent amounts and is substantively the same as § 932.4(f) of the Finance
First, the proposed rule would add a credit risk capital charge for all cleared derivatives contracts, including exchange-traded futures contracts. Under the current regulation, cleared derivatives contracts have a charge of zero. However, when the Finance Board adopted the current regulation, the only cleared derivatives contracts used by the Banks were exchange-traded futures contracts, and the Banks did not commonly use futures. Given the Dodd-Frank Act clearing requirements, Banks will now clear a significant percentage of their OTC derivatives contracts.
Specifically, § 1277.4(e)(4)(ii) of the proposed rule would impose a capital charge of 0.16 percent times the sum of a Bank's marked-to-market exposure on the cleared derivatives contract,
For uncleared derivatives contracts, the proposed rule would carry over much of the approach in the current regulation, in that a Bank's charge for a derivatives contract would equal the sum of the Bank's current credit exposure and potential future credit exposure under the derivatives contract, multiplied by the applicable CRPR assigned to the derivatives counterparty under Table 1.2 of proposed § 1277.4(f). As under the current regulation, the proposed rule would deem that for purposes of calculating the charge on the current credit exposure the CRPR should be that associated with an asset with a maturity of one year or less and the Bank's internal rating for the derivatives counterparty. The calculation of the charge for the potential future exposure would be based on the CRPR associated with the maturity category equal to the remaining maturity of the derivatives contract.
The proposed rule, however, also would add to the above amounts an additional credit risk charge for the amount of collateral posted to a counterparty that exceeds the Bank's current, marked-to-market obligation to that counterparty under the derivatives contract.
The proposed rule would allow the Bank to reduce its credit risk capital charge for derivatives contracts based on collateral posted by the counterparty, but only if the Bank's treatment of collateral posted under the derivatives contract complies with proposed § 1277.4(e)(3). That provision would first require the Bank to hold such collateral itself or in a segregated account consistent with requirements in the uncleared swaps margin and capital rule.
The proposed rule would assure that minimum standards apply before a Bank can reduce its derivatives credit risk capital charge based on the protection offered by collateral. The changes in the proposed rule would impose slightly higher collateral standards than under the current regulation, but would be consistent with the move toward stricter requirements for derivatives that has followed the recent financial crisis.
Proposed § 1277.4(
This section of the proposed rule would provide a Bank the option of calculating the potential future credit exposure by using an initial margin model approved for use by the Bank by FHFA under § 1221.8 of the margin and capital rules for uncleared swaps, or that has been approved by another regulator for use by the Bank's counterparty under standards similar to those in § 1221.8, or by using the standard calculation set forth in Appendix A of the part 1221 rules.
The fact that a Bank has never experienced a loss on an advance to a member institution creates challenges in identifying proper CRPRs for advances. When the Finance Board first developed the risk-based capital rule, it determined that appropriate requirements for advances should be greater than zero but less than the requirements for assets of the highest investment grade. Consequently, the Finance Board set the CRPRs for advances within those bounds by using the estimated default rate of assets of the highest investment grade and then applying a loss-given-default rate (LGD) of 10 percent, a much lower rate than the 100 percent LGD rate applied to other assets. The Finance Board justified the low LGD for advances by noting the over-collateralization provided for advances and other protections afforded advances under the Bank Act and Finance Board rules. The Finance Board also adjusted downward the CRPRs for advances for the two longest maturity categories in Table 1.1 to ensure those advances requirements would not exceed the CRPRs for mortgage assets of a similar maturity (as listed in current Table 1.2). It adjusted upward the CRPRs for the shortest maturity category because as calculated, the requirement for advances with a maturity of four years or less would have been zero.
FHFA based the proposed new CRPRs for advances on the same concepts used by the Finance Board, but without any adjustments to the resulting percentage requirements. As discussed below, the proposed rule uses the same default rates for setting the CRPRs for advances as the revised default rate used to calculate the CRPRs for non-mortgage assets of the highest investment category. The proposed rule would
Under the proposal, the total capital charges for advances would rise slightly compared to the current regulation. For example, as of year-end 2016, the proposed CRPRs would result in an increased credit risk charge for advances, although the dollar amount of the change would not be significant given the Banks' overall level of capitalization. Specifically, the aggregate credit risk capital charges for System-wide advances would increase from approximately 0.071 percent of the Banks' total assets to approximately 0.087 percent of total assets—an increase in dollar terms from $749 million to approximately $920 million. To put this increase in perspective, System-wide permanent capital available to meet the risk-based capital requirements exceeded $54 billion in the fourth quarter of 2016. Further, given that advances represented over 66 percent of the Bank System's total assets as of year-end 2016, the absolute amount of credit risk capital charge required for advances under the proposed rule would remain modest and in keeping with the very low risk posed by advances.
The proposed rule, however, differs from the current regulation by requiring the Bank to determine the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category for each instrument covered by proposed Table 1.2. The Bank would do so by conducting its own internal calculation of a credit rating for that instrument, rather than assigning it a CRPR based on an NRSRO rating. Thus, each Bank also would need to establish a mapping of its internal credit ratings to the various FHFA Credit Rating categories in proposed Table 1.2. Given the similarity in structure and basis between proposed Table 1.2 and current Table 1.3, and the historical data connection of both tables to historical loss rates, as experienced by financial instruments categorized by the NRSRO ratings, the Banks should be able to map their internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories in proposed Table 1.2 in a straightforward manner. Because the proposed rule would rely on a Bank's internal credit ratings and its mapping of those ratings to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category, it is possible that the CRPR for a particular instrument or counterparty determined under the proposed rule would differ from the CRPR that is assigned under the current regulations.
As discussed above, the proposed rule would require the Banks to develop a method for assigning a rating to a counterparty or instrument and then map that rating to an FHFA Credit Rating category. The proposed rule would not require a Bank to obtain FHFA approval of either its method of calculating the internal credit rating or of its mapping of such ratings to the FHFA Credit Ratings categories. Instead, the proposed rule would specify that a Bank's rating method must involve an evaluation of counterparty or asset risk factors, which may include measures of the counterparty's scale, earnings, liquidity, asset quality, and capital adequacy, and could incorporate, but not rely solely upon, credit ratings available from an NRSRO or other sources.
FHFA intends to rely on the examination process to review the Banks' internal rating methodologies and mapping processes. FHFA finds that approach appropriate because the Banks have been using internal rating methodologies for some time, and any adjustments to those methodologies that FHFA may direct a Bank to undertake in the future based on its supervisory review would not likely have a material effect on a Bank's overall credit risk capital requirement. That said, the proposed rule also includes a provision that would allow FHFA, on a case-by-case basis, to direct a Bank to change the calculated credit risk capital charge for any non-mortgage asset, off-balance sheet item, or derivatives contract, as necessary to remedy for any deficiency that FHFA identifies with respect to a Bank's internal credit rating methodology for such instruments.
Both the previous Finance Board approach underlying current Table 1.3 and the current Basel credit risk model use historical default data to determine a distribution of potential default rates, and then identify a stress level of default consistent with a selected confidence level of the default rate distribution. The prior Finance Board approach differs from the Basel credit risk model in the methods used to identify both the mean and variance of the default rate distribution. The prior Finance Board approach relied on a number of key assumptions arrived at judgmentally, whereas the later-developed Basel credit risk model relies on a sound and internally consistent theoretical construct. Thus, the Basel credit risk model represents a more sound and consistent approach than the Finance Board approach.
The application of the Basel credit risk model has two key data inputs—probability of default (PD) and LGD, grouped by segments that have homogeneous risk characteristics. To ensure consistent determinations of PDs and LGDs for the CRPR calculation, FHFA selected the PDs and LGDs from historical cumulative corporate default data. FHFA selected PDs from a sample period of 1970–2005 and grouped them by asset credit quality and maturity categories.
The corporate default data that FHFA used to set PDs came from Moody's Investor Service. The Moody's data are very similar to historically comparable data provided by other rating agencies. More recent default rate data were available, but any data set that included the period post 2006 would reflect the abnormally high default rates that occurred during the recent financial crisis, and represent an exceptionally stressful period. Including the more recent data as an input to the Basel credit risk model would result in overstating required capital.
The Basel credit risk model requires already stressed LGDs as inputs. FHFA used the same LGD for all PD categories, and arrived at a stressed LGD by examining Moody's recovery rate (one minus LGD) data from 1982 through 2011. The recovery rates were measured based on 30-day post-default trading prices.
The Basel II IRB application of the Basel credit risk model uses a confidence level or severity of the imposed stress of 99.9 percent.
Updating the methodology behind proposed Table 1.2 would result in proposed CRPRs generally higher than current charges. Specifically, based on actual System-wide data for year-end 2016, the proposed new methodology would raise required credit risk capital, when compared to that calculated under the current regulation for non-advance, non-mortgage assets, from about 0.095 percent of assets to about 0.139 percent of assets, or by 47 percent.
Proposed § 1277.4(j) would carry over the special provisions for calculation of the capital charge on non-mortgage assets hedged with certain credit derivatives, if a Bank so chooses. The proposed provision would not alter the substance of the current provision as to the criteria that must be met for the special provision to apply or the method of calculating the capital charges. Generally, under the proposed provision, a Bank would be able to substitute the capital charge associated with the credit derivatives (as calculated under proposed § 1277.4(e)) for all or a portion of the capital charge calculated for the non-mortgage assets, if the hedging relationships meet the criteria in the proposed provision.
Proposed Table 1.4 would replace Table 1.2 from the current regulation, and would set forth the CRPRs to be used to calculate the capital charges for three categories of internally rated residential mortgage assets—residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations—each of which would be a defined term under the proposed rule. The current regulation assigns CRPRs for these assets by use of a look-up table that delineates the CRPRs by NRSRO rating and residential mortgage asset type. The proposed rule would retain this approach, but would replace the NRSRO rating categories with FHFA Credit Ratings categories. Proposed Table 1.4 would include seven categories of FHFA Credit Ratings labeled “FHFA RMA 1 through 7,” which categories would apply to residential mortgages and residential mortgage securities. Table 1.4 would include seven other categories, which would be labeled “FHFA CMO 1 through 7,” which categories would apply only to collateralized mortgage obligations. As described previously, the term “residential mortgage securities” would include only those instruments that represent an undivided ownership interest in a pool of residential mortgage loans,
Proposed Table 1.4 would carry over all of the CRPRs from the existing Finance Board regulations without change. As under the current regulation, the credit risk associated with assets placed into proposed FHFA Credit Rating categories 1 through 4 in most cases would likely correspond to the credit risk that is associated with assets having an investment grade rating from an NRSRO. Thus, instruments assigned to the categories of FHFA RMA 1 or FHFA CMO 1 would suggest the highest credit quality and the lowest level of credit risk; categories FHFA RMA 2 or FHFA CMO 2 would suggest high quality and a very low level of credit risk; and categories FHFA RMA 3 or FHFA CMO 3 would suggest an upper-medium level of credit quality and low credit risk. Categories FHFA RMA 4 or FHFA CMO 4 would suggest medium quality and moderate credit risk. The proposed rule provides that all assets assigned to these four categories must have no greater level of credit risk than associated with investments that qualify as “AMA Investment Grade” under FHFA's AMA regulation,
The proposed rule, however, would differ from the current regulation by requiring the Bank to assign each of its mortgage-related assets to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on the Bank's internal calculation of a credit rating for the asset, rather than on its NRSRO rating. The proposed rule follows the same approach as would be required for non-mortgage assets, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts under Table 1.2, which requires that the Bank develop a methodology to assign an internal credit rating to each of its mortgage-related assets, and then align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating categories in proposed Table 1.4. The Bank's methodology, as applied to residential mortgages, must involve an evaluation of the underlying loans and any credit enhancements or guarantees, as well as an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of any such enhancements or guarantees. As applied to residential mortgage securities and collateralized mortgage obligations, the Bank's methodology must involve an evaluation of the underlying mortgage collateral, the structure of the security, and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. The Banks' methodologies may incorporate NRSRO credit ratings, provided that they do not rely solely on those ratings. Given that both proposed Table 1.4 and current Table 1.2 have the same structure and are based on historical loss rates, as experienced by financial instruments categorized by the NRSRO rating, the Banks should be able to map their internal credit ratings to proposed Table 1.4 in a straightforward manner. Because the Bank's internal credit ratings will determine the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category for its residential mortgage assets, it is possible that the internally generated rating will differ from the NRSRO rating for a particular instrument, and that the CRPR assigned under the proposed rule would differ from that assigned under the current Finance Board regulations.
As is the case with respect to the methodology to be used in assigning internal credit ratings to the various FHFA Credit Ratings categories of Table 1.2, the proposed rule would not require a Bank to obtain prior FHFA approval of either its method of calculating the internal credit rating or of its mapping of such ratings to the FHFA Credit Rating categories. FHFA intends to rely on the examination process to review the Banks' internal rating methodologies and mapping processes for these assets. As noted previously, the Banks have been using internal rating methodologies for some time, and any adjustments to those methodologies that FHFA may direct a Bank to undertake in the future based on its supervisory review would not likely have a material effect on a Bank's overall credit risk capital requirement. Nonetheless, the proposed rule would reserve to FHFA the right to require a Bank to change the calculated capital charges for residential mortgage assets to account for any deficiencies identified by FHFA with a Bank's internal residential mortgage asset credit rating methodology, which is identical to the provision relating to assets covered by Table 1.2.
The proposed rule includes two exceptions that provide for a capital charge of zero for two categories of mortgage assets. First, the proposed rule would apply a capital charge of zero to any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation (or any portion thereof) that is guaranteed as to the payment of principal and interest by one of the Enterprises, but only if the Enterprise is operating with capital support or other form of direct financial assistance from the United States government that would enable the Enterprise to cover its guarantee. The financial support currently provided by the United States Department of the Treasury under the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements qualifies under this provision. This exception is identical in substance to proposed § 1277.4(f)(3), which pertains to non-mortgage-related debt instruments issued by an Enterprise. Second, the proposed rule would apply a capital charge of zero to any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation that is guaranteed or insured by a United States government agency or department and is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
FHFA proposes to readopt the existing market risk capital requirements with only the minor revisions described below.
FHFA proposes to repeal the additional capital requirement that applies whenever a Bank's market value of capital is less than 85 percent of its book value of capital (85 Percent Test), which is located at 12 CFR 932.5 of the Finance Board regulations. This provision has become superfluous because FHFA can monitor a Bank's market value of capital and has other authority to impose additional capital requirements on a Bank if necessary.
FHFA proposes to carry over the current approach set forth in § 932.6 of the Finance Board regulations for calculating a Bank's operational risk capital requirement. As a consequence, proposed § 1277.6 provides that a Bank's operational risk capital requirement shall equal 30 percent of the sum of the Bank's credit risk and market capital requirements. The Finance Board originally based the requirement on a statutory requirement applicable to the Enterprises, noting that given the difficulties of empirically measuring operational risk, it was reasonable to rely on the statutorily mandated provisions for guidance.
FHFA also proposes to carry forward the current provisions in the regulation that allows a Bank to reduce the operational risk charge to as low as 10 percent of the combined market and credit risk charges if the Bank presents an alternative methodology for assessing or quantifying operational risk that meets with FHFA's approval. The proposed rule also would retain the provision that allows a Bank, subject to FHFA approval, to reduce the operational risk charge to as low as 10 percent if the Bank obtains insurance against such risk. However, to be consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act, the proposed rule would replace the current requirement that any such insurer have a credit rating from an NRSRO no lower than the second highest investment category with a requirement that FHFA find the insurance provider acceptable.
With the exception of the revisions described below, FHFA proposes to carry over the substance of the current Finance Board regulations pertaining to a Bank's unsecured extensions of credit to a single counterparty or group of affiliated counterparties. Section 1277.7 of the proposed rule would include most of the provisions now found at 12 CFR 932.9 of the Finance Board regulations. The principal revision to the existing regulation would be to determine unsecured credit limits based on a Bank's internal credit rating for a particular counterparty and the corresponding FHFA Credit Rating category for such exposures, rather than on NRSRO credit ratings. This change would bring the rule into compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that agencies replace regulatory provisions that rely on NRSRO credit ratings with alternative standards to assess credit quality.
Proposed Table 1 to § 1277.7 sets forth the applicable maximum capital exposure limits used to calculate the relevant unsecured credit limit. These limits are: (i) 15 percent for a counterparty determined to have an FHFA 1 rating; (ii) 14 percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 2 rating; (iii) nine percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 3 rating; (iv) three percent for a counterparty with an FHFA 4 rating; and (v) one percent for any counterparty rated FHFA 5 or lower. The numerical limits are the same as those in the current regulation, with the differences in proposed Table 1 to § 1277.7 being the use of the FHFA Credit Rating categories in place of the NRSRO ratings.
As under the current regulation, the general unsecured credit limit,
The proposed rule also would retain, with some revisions, the approach used by the current regulation with respect to NRSRO rating downgrades of a counterparty or obligation. The proposed rule would not use the term “downgrade” because that term is more appropriately associated with an action taken by a third-party ratings organization, such as an NRSRO. Instead, the proposed rule would provide that if a Bank revises its internal credit rating for a particular counterparty or obligation, it shall thereafter assign the counterparty or obligation to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on that revised internal rating. The proposed rule further provides that if the revised rating results in a lower FHFA Credit Rating category, then any subsequent extension of unsecured credit must comply with the new limit calculated using the lower credit rating. The proposed rule makes clear, however, that a Bank need not unwind any existing unsecured credit exposures as a result of the lower limit, provided they were originated in compliance with the unsecured credit limits in effect at that time. The proposed rule would continue to consider any renewal of an existing unsecured extension of credit, including a decision not to terminate a sale of federal funds subject to a continuing contract, as a new transaction, which would be subject to the recalculated limit.
For non-cleared derivatives transactions, the total unsecured credit exposure would equal the Bank's current and future potential credit exposures calculated in accordance with the proposed credit risk capital provision, plus the amount of any collateral posted by the Bank that exceeds the amount the Bank owes to its counterparty, but only to the extent such excess posted collateral is not held by a third-party custodian in accordance with FHFA's margin and capital rule for uncleared swaps.
For off-balance sheet items, the unsecured extension of credit would equal the credit equivalent amount for that item, calculated in accordance with proposed § 1277.4(g). As with the current regulation, proposed § 1277.7(f) also provides that any debt obligation or debt security (other than a mortgage-backed or other asset-backed security or acquired member asset) shall be considered an unsecured extension of credit. Also consistent with the current regulation, this provision provides an exception for any amount owed to the Bank under a debt obligation or debt security for which the Bank holds collateral consistent with the requirements of proposed § 1277.4(f)(2)(ii) or any other amount that FHFA determines on a case-by-case basis should not be considered an unsecured extension of credit.
Proposed § 1277.8 provides that each Bank shall report information related to capital or other matters addressed by part 1277 in accordance with instructions provided in the Data Reporting Manual issued by FHFA, as amended from time to time.
When promulgating regulations relating to the Banks, section 1313(f) of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requires the Director of FHFA (Director) to consider the differences between the Banks and the Enterprises with respect to the Banks' cooperative ownership structure; mission of providing liquidity to members; affordable housing and community development mission; capital structure; and joint and several liability.
The proposed rule amendments do not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Capital, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Capital, Credit, Federal home loan banks, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the Preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1426, 1436(a), 1440, 1443, 1446, 4511, 4513, 4514, 4526, 4612, FHFA
12 U.S.C. 1426, 1436(a), 1440, 1443, 1446, 4511, 4513, 4514, 4526, and 4612.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times:
(a) Total capital in an amount at least equal to 4.0 percent of the Bank's total assets; and
(b) A leverage ratio of total capital to total assets of at least 5.0 percent of the Bank's total assets. For purposes of determining this leverage ratio, total capital shall be computed by multiplying the Bank's permanent capital by 1.5 and adding to this product all other components of total capital.
Each Bank shall maintain at all times permanent capital in an amount at least equal to the sum of its credit risk capital requirement, its market risk capital requirement, and its operational risk capital requirement, calculated in accordance with §§ 1277.4, 1277.5, and 1277.6 of this part, respectively.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) The current credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that derivatives contract pursuant to Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, provided that a Bank shall deem the remaining maturity of the derivatives contract to be less than one year for the purpose of applying Table 1.2; plus
(ii) The potential future credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section, multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned to that derivatives contract pursuant to Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section, where a Bank uses the actual remaining maturity of the derivatives contract for the purpose of applying Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section; plus
(iii) A credit risk capital charge applicable to the amount of collateral posted by the Bank with respect to a derivatives contract that exceeds the Bank's current payment obligation under that derivatives contract, where the charge equals the amount of such excess collateral multiplied by the credit risk percentage requirement assigned under Table 1.2 of paragraph (f)(1) of this section for the custodian or other party that holds the collateral, and where a Bank deems the exposure to have a remaining maturity of one year or less when applying Table 1.2.
(2)(i) The credit risk capital charge calculated under paragraph (e)(1) of this section may be adjusted for any collateral held by or on behalf of the Bank in accordance with paragraph (e)(3) of this section against an exposure from the derivatives contract as follows:
(A) The discounted value of the collateral shall first be applied to reduce the current credit exposure of the derivatives contract subject the capital charge;
(B) If the total discounted value of the collateral held exceeds the current credit exposure of the contract, any remaining amounts may be applied to reduce the amount of the potential future credit exposure of the derivatives contract subject to the capital charge; and
(C) The amount of the collateral used to reduce the exposure to the derivatives contract is subject to the applicable credit risk capital charge required by paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section.
(ii) If a Bank's counterparty's payment obligations under a derivatives contract are unconditionally guaranteed by a third-party, then the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to the derivatives contract may be that associated with the guarantor, rather than the Bank's counterparty.
(3) The credit risk capital charge may be adjusted as described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) for collateral held against the derivatives contract exposure only if the collateral is:
(i) Held by, or has been paid to, the Bank or held by an independent, third-party custodian on behalf of the Bank pursuant to a custody agreement that meets the requirements of § 1221.7(c) and (d) of this chapter;
(ii) Legally available to absorb losses;
(iii) Of a readily determinable value at which it can be liquidated by the Bank; and
(iv) Subject to an appropriate discount to protect against price decline during the holding period and the costs likely to be incurred in the liquidation of the collateral, provided that such discount shall equal at least the minimum discount required under Appendix B to part 1221 of this chapter for collateral listed in that Appendix, or be estimated by the Bank based on appropriate assumptions about the price risks and liquidation costs for collateral not listed in Appendix B to part 1221.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this paragraph (e), the credit risk capital charge for:
(i) A foreign exchange rate contract (excluding gold contracts) with an original maturity of 14 calendar days or less shall be zero;
(ii) A derivatives contract cleared by a derivatives clearing organization shall equal 0.16 percent times the sum of the following:
(A) The current credit exposure for the derivatives contract, calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this section;
(B) The potential future credit exposure for the derivatives contract calculated in accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section; and
(C) The amount of collateral that the Bank has posted to, and is held by, the derivatives clearing organization, but only to the extent the amount exceeds the Bank's current credit exposure to the derivatives clearing organization.
(f)
(ii) Each Bank shall develop a methodology to be used to assign an internal credit risk rating to each counterparty, asset, item, and contract that is subject to Table 1.2 to § 1277.4. The methodology shall involve an evaluation of counterparty or asset risk factors, and may incorporate, but must not rely solely upon, credit ratings prepared by credit rating agencies. Each Bank shall align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of FHFA Credit Ratings included in Table 1.2 to § 1277.4. In doing so, each Bank shall ensure that the credit risk associated with any asset assigned to FHFA Categories 1 through 4 is no greater than that associated with an instrument that would be deemed to be of “investment quality,” as that term is defined by § 1267.1 of this chapter. FHFA Categories 3 through 1 shall include assets of progressively higher credit quality than Category 4, and FHFA Credit Rating categories 5 through 7 shall include assets of progressively lower credit quality. After aligning its internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of Table 1.2 to § 1277.4, each Bank shall assign each counterparty, asset, item, and contract to the appropriate FHFA Credit Rating category based on the applicable internal credit rating.
(2)
(ii) For purposes of paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, a non-mortgage asset shall be considered to be secured if the collateral is:
(A) Actually held by the Bank or an independent, third-party custodian on the Bank's behalf, or, if posted by a Bank member and permitted under the Bank's collateral agreement with that member, by the Bank's member or an affiliate of that member where the term “affiliate” has the same meaning as in § 1266.1 of this chapter;
(B) Legally available to absorb losses;
(C) Of a readily determinable value at which it can be liquidated by the Bank;
(D) Held in accordance with the provisions of the Bank's member products policy established pursuant to § 1239.30 of this chapter, if the collateral has been posted by a member or an affiliate of a member; and
(E) Subject to an appropriate discount to protect against price decline during
(3)
(4)
(g)
(ii) Each Bank shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each residential mortgage and residential mortgage security by identifying the appropriate FHFA RMA category set forth in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4 to which the asset belongs, and shall determine the credit risk percentage requirement applicable to each collateralized mortgage obligation by identifying the appropriate FHFA CMO category set forth in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4 to which the asset belongs, with the appropriate categories being determined in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Each Bank shall develop a methodology to be used to assign an internal credit risk rating to each of its residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations. For residential mortgages, the methodology shall involve an evaluation of the residential mortgages and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. In the case of a residential mortgage security or collateralized mortgage obligation, the methodology shall involve an evaluation of the underlying mortgage collateral, the structure of the security, and any credit enhancements or guarantees, including an assessment of the creditworthiness of the providers of such enhancements or guarantees. Such methodologies may incorporate, but may not rely solely upon, credit ratings prepared by credit ratings agencies. Each Bank shall align its various internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of FHFA Credit Ratings included in Table 1.4 to § 1277.4. In doing so, each Bank shall ensure that the credit risk associated with any asset assigned to categories FHFA RMA 1 through 4 or FHFA CMO 1 through 4 is no greater than that associated with an instrument that would be deemed to be of “investment quality,” as that term is defined by 12 CFR 1267.1. FHFA Categories 3 through 1 shall include assets of progressively higher credit quality than Category 4, and FHFA Categories 5 through 7 shall include assets of progressively lower credit quality. After aligning its internal credit ratings to the appropriate categories of Table 1.4 to § 1277.4, each Bank shall assign each of its residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, and collateralized mortgage obligation to the appropriate FHFA Credit Ratings category based on the Bank's internal credit rating of that asset.
(2)
(ii) A Bank may use a credit risk capital charge of zero for a residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation, or any portion thereof, guaranteed or insured as to payment of principal and interest by a department or agency of the United States government that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States; and
(iii) FHFA may direct a Bank, on a case-by-case basis, to change the calculated credit risk capital charge for any residential mortgage, residential mortgage security, or collateralized mortgage obligation, as necessary to account for any deficiency that FHFA identifies with respect to a Bank's internal credit rating methodology for residential mortgages, residential mortgage securities, or collateralized mortgage obligations.
(h)
(2)
(i)
(A) If the mark-to-market value of the contract is positive, the mark-to-market value of the contract; or
(B) If the mark-to-market value of the contract is zero or negative, zero.
(ii)
(A) The net sum of all positive and negative mark-to-market values of the individual derivatives contracts subject to the eligible master netting agreement, if the net sum of the mark-to-market values is positive; or
(B) Zero, if the net sum of the mark-to-market values is zero or negative.
(2)
(i) Using an internal initial margin model that meets the requirements of § 1221.8 of this chapter and is approved by FHFA for use by the Bank, or that has been approved under regulations similar to § 1221.8 of this chapter for use by the Bank's counterparty to calculate initial margin for those derivatives contracts for which the calculation is being done; or
(ii) By applying the standardized approach in Appendix A to Part 1221 of this chapter.
(j)
(2)
(3)
(i) The remaining maturity for the credit derivative used for the hedge is identical to or exceeds the remaining maturity for the hedged non-mortgage asset, and either:
(A) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is identical to the hedged non-mortgage asset; or
(B) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is different from the hedged non-mortgage asset, but only if the asset referenced in the credit derivative and the hedged non-mortgage asset have been issued by the same obligor, the asset referenced in the credit derivative ranks
(ii) The credit risk capital charge for the credit derivatives contract calculated pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section is still applied.
(4)
(i) The remaining maturity for the credit derivative is less than the remaining maturity for the hedged non-mortgage asset and either:
(A) The non-mortgage asset referenced in the credit derivative is identical to the hedged asset; or
(B) The asset referenced in the credit derivative is different from the hedged non-mortgage asset, but only if the asset referenced in the credit derivative and the hedged non-mortgage asset have been issued by the same obligor, the asset referenced in the credit derivative ranks
(ii) The credit risk capital charge for the unhedged portion of the non-mortgage asset equals:
(A) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged non-mortgage asset, calculated as the book value of the hedged non-mortgage asset multiplied by that asset's credit risk percentage requirement assigned pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section where the appropriate credit rating is that for the hedged non-mortgage asset and the appropriate maturity is the remaining maturity of the hedged non-mortgage asset; minus
(B) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged non-mortgage asset, calculated as the book value of the hedged non-mortgage asset multiplied by that asset's credit risk percentage requirement assigned pursuant to paragraph (f)(1) of this section where the appropriate credit rating is that for the hedged non-mortgage asset but the appropriate maturity is deemed to be the remaining maturity of the credit derivative; and
(iii) The credit risk capital charge for the hedged portion of the non-mortgage asset is equal to the credit risk capital charge for the credit derivative, calculated in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(k)
(a)
(2) A Bank may substitute an internal cash flow model to derive a market risk capital requirement in place of that calculated using an internal market risk model under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, provided that:
(i) The Bank obtains FHFA approval of the internal cash flow model and of the assumptions to be applied to the model; and
(ii) The Bank demonstrates to FHFA that the internal cash flow model subjects the Bank's assets and liabilities, off-balance sheet items, and derivatives contracts, including related options, to a comparable degree of stress for such factors as will be required for an internal market risk model.
(b)
(2) The Bank's internal market risk model may use any generally accepted measurement technique, such as variance-covariance models, historical simulations, or Monte Carlo simulations, for estimating the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk, provided that any measurement technique used must cover the Bank's material risks.
(3) The measures of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk shall include the risks arising from the non-linear price characteristics of options and the sensitivity of the market value of options to changes in the volatility of the options' underlying rates or prices.
(4) The Bank's internal market risk model shall use interest rate and market price scenarios for estimating the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk, but at a minimum:
(i) The Bank's internal market risk model shall provide an estimate of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk such that the probability of a loss greater than that estimated shall be no more than one percent;
(ii) The Bank's internal market risk model shall incorporate scenarios that reflect changes in interest rates, interest rate volatility, option-adjusted spreads, and shape of the yield curve, and changes in market prices, equivalent to those that have been observed over 120-business day periods of market stress. For interest rates, the relevant historical observations should be drawn from the period that starts at the end of the previous month and goes back to the beginning of 1978;
(iii) The total number of, and specific historical observations identified by the Bank as, stress scenarios shall be:
(A) Satisfactory to FHFA;
(B) Representative of the periods of the greatest potential market stress given the Bank's portfolio, and
(C) Comprehensive given the modeling capabilities available to the Bank; and
(iv) The measure of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk may incorporate empirical correlations among interest rates.
(5) For any consolidated obligations denominated in a currency other than U.S. Dollars or linked to equity or commodity prices, each Bank shall, in addition to fulfilling the criteria of paragraph (b)(4) of this section, calculate an estimate of the market value of its portfolio at risk resulting from material foreign exchange, equity price or commodity price risk, such that, at a minimum:
(i) The probability of a loss greater than that estimated shall not exceed one percent;
(ii) The scenarios reflect changes in foreign exchange, equity, or commodity market prices that have been observed over 120-business day periods of market stress, as determined using historical data that is from an appropriate period;
(iii) The total number of, and specific historical observations identified by the Bank as, stress scenarios shall be:
(A) Satisfactory to FHFA;
(B) Representative of the periods of greatest potential stress given the Bank's portfolio; and
(C) Comprehensive given the modeling capabilities available to the Bank; and
(iv) The measure of the market value of the Bank's portfolio at risk may incorporate empirical correlations within or among foreign exchange rates, equity prices, or commodity prices.
(c)
(2) The results of such independent validations shall be reviewed by the Bank's board of directors and provided promptly to FHFA.
(d)
(2) A model and any material adjustments to such model that were approved by FHFA or the Federal Housing Finance Board shall meet the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section, unless such approval is revoked or amended by FHFA.
(e)
(a)
(b)
(1) The Bank provides an alternative methodology for assessing and quantifying an operational risk capital requirement; or
(2) The Bank obtains insurance to cover operational risk from an insurer acceptable to FHFA.
(a)
(1)
(i) The Bank's total capital; or
(ii) The counterparty's Tier 1 capital, or if Tier 1 capital is not available, total capital (in each case as defined by the counterparty's principal regulator) or some similar comparable measure identified by the Bank.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(ii) If a Bank determines that a specific debt obligation issued by a counterparty has a lower FHFA Credit Rating category than that applicable to the counterparty, the total amount of the lower-rated obligation held by the Bank may not exceed a sub-limit calculated in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The Bank shall use the lower credit rating associated with the specific obligation to determine the applicable maximum capital exposure sub-limit. For purposes of this paragraph, the internal credit rating of the debt obligation shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(5)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(i) The Bank's total capital; or
(ii) The counterparty's, or affiliated counterparties' combined, Tier 1 capital, or if Tier 1 capital is not available, total capital (in each case as defined by the counterparty's principal regulator), or some similar comparable measure identified by the Bank.
(2)
(3)
(f)
(i) For on-balance sheet transactions (other than a derivatives transaction addressed by paragraph (f)(1)(iii)) of this section, an amount equal to the sum of the amortized cost of the item plus net payments due the Bank. For any such item carried at fair value where any change in fair value would be recognized in the Bank's income, the Bank shall measure the unsecured extension of credit based on the fair
(ii) For off-balance sheet transactions, an amount equal to the credit equivalent amount of such item, calculated in accordance with § 1277.4(g); and
(iii) For derivatives transactions not cleared by a derivatives clearing organization, an amount equal to the sum of:
(A) The Bank's current and potential future credit exposures under the derivatives contract, where those values are calculated in accordance with § 1277.4(i)(1) and (i)(2) respectively, adjusted by the amount of any collateral held by or on behalf of the Bank against the credit exposure from the derivatives contract, as allowed in accordance with the requirements of § 1277.4(e)(2) and (e)(3); and
(B) The value of any collateral posted by the Bank that exceeds the current amount owed by the Bank to its counterparty under the derivatives contract, where the collateral is not held by a third-party custodian in accordance with § 1221.7(c) and (d) of this chapter.
(2)
(i) Any amount owed the Bank against which the Bank holds collateral in accordance with § 1277.4(f)(2)(ii); or
(ii) Any amount which FHFA has determined on a case-by-case basis shall not be considered an unsecured extension of credit.
(g)
(1) Obligations of, or guaranteed by, the United States;
(2) A derivatives transaction accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization;
(3) Any extension of credit from one Bank to another Bank; and
(4) A bond issued by a state housing finance agency if the Bank documents that the obligation in question is:
(i) Principally secured by high quality mortgage loans or high quality mortgage-backed securities (or funds derived from payments on such assets or from payments from any guarantees or insurance associated with such assets);
(ii) The most senior class of obligation, if the bond has more than one class; and
(iii) Determined by the Bank to be rated no lower than FHFA 2, in accordance with this section.
Each Bank shall report information related to capital and other matters addressed by this part 1277 in accordance with instructions provided in the Data Reporting Manual issued by FHFA, as amended from time to time.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Game Composites Ltd. GB1 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with static stability. This airplane can perform at the highest level of aerobatic competition. To be competitive, the airplane is designed with its lateral and directional axes being decoupled from each other; providing more precise maneuvering. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before August 2, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA–2017–0651 using any of the following methods:
□
□
□
□
Mr. Ross Schaller, Federal Aviation Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329–4162; facsimile (816) 329–4090.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On March 10, 2014, Game Composite Ltd. applied for a type certificate for their new GB1 airplane. The GB1 is a
Acrobatic airplanes previously type certified by the FAA did comply with the stability provisions of part 23, subpart B. However, airplanes like the GB1 are considered as “unlimited” acrobatic airplanes because these airplanes can perform all the maneuvers listed in the Aresti Catalog. Generally, the evolution of the “unlimited” types of acrobatic airplanes, with very low mass, exceptional roll rates, and very high G capabilities—in addition to power to mass ratios—are unique to this type of airplane and have led to airplanes that cannot comply with the stability provisions of the regulations. These airplanes can be type certified in the acrobatic category only with an appropriate set of special conditions and associated limitations.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Game Composites Ltd. must show the GB 1 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23–1 through 23–62 thereto.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GB1 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92–574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The GB1 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:
For acrobatic category airplanes with unlimited acrobatic capability:
Relaxed longitudinal and decoupled lateral static stability characteristics
Sections 23.173 and 23.177 provide static stability criteria for longitudinal, lateral, and directional axes requirements for an airplane. However, these requirements are not adequate to address the specific issues raised in the flight characteristics of an unlimited aerobatic airplane. Therefore, the FAA has determined special conditions are needed—after a flight-test evaluation—to address the static stability characteristics of the GB1. Accordingly, these special conditions are for the Game Composites Ltd. GB1 airplane's static stability characteristics.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the GB1. Should Game Composites Ltd. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature the FAA would apply these special conditions to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special condition as part of the type certification basis for Game Composites GB1 airplanes.
Under the conditions in 14 CFR 23.175 and with the airplane trimmed as indicated, the characteristics of the elevator control forces and the friction within the control system must be as follows:
(a) A pull must be required to obtain and maintain speeds below the specified trim speed and a push required to obtain and maintain speeds above the specified trim speed. This must be shown at any speed that can be obtained, except that speeds requiring a control force in excess of 40 pounds or speeds above the maximum allowable speed or below the minimum speed for steady unstalled flight need not be considered.
(b) The stick force or position must vary with speed so any substantial speed change results in a stick force or position clearly perceptible to the pilot.
(a) The static directional stability, as shown by the tendency to recover from a wings level sideslip with the rudder free, must be positive for any landing gear and flap position appropriate to the takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and landing configurations. This must be shown with symmetrical power up to maximum continuous power and at speeds from 1.2 V
(b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 V
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the Safran Aircraft Engines (SAE), Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model. This engine will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with an additional takeoff rating that increases the exhaust gas temperature (EGT) limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before July 6, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA–2017–0586] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Tara Fitzgerald, ANE–112, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts, 01803–5213; telephone (781) 238–7130; facsimile (781) 238–7199; email
Certification of the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model is currently scheduled for August 2018. The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and public comment procedure. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the applicant's certification of the engine, we are shortening the public comment period to end on July 6, 2017.
We invite interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposed special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this special condition, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On April 19, 2011, SNECMA, now known as SAE, applied for a type certificate for the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model. On April 30, 2014, SAE requested an extension to their original type certificate application, which the FAA granted through June 30, 2015. On May 26, 2015, SAE requested another extension to their type certificate application, which the FAA granted through September 30, 2018.
SAE proposed an additional takeoff rating to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions with all engines operating (AEO) for the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model. Therefore, the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model would have two different takeoff ratings. The first rating corresponds with the rated takeoff thrust of the engine. The second takeoff rating maintains the takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions. This additional takeoff rating is named “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT). The Rated TOTHAT is an approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation for a maximum usage of 20 minutes in any one flight.
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, SAE must show that the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 33, as amended by Amendments 33–1 through 33–34 in effect on the date of application.
If the FAA finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that
In addition to complying with the applicable product airworthiness regulations and the requirements of the special conditions, the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model must comply with the fuel venting and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, referred to as “Rated TOTHAT”. This additional takeoff rating increases the EGT limit to maintain takeoff thrust in certain high ambient temperature conditions for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight.
The Rated TOTHAT is designed for use during takeoff in specified high altitudes and high ambient temperature conditions to maintain thrust during takeoff for a maximum of 20 minutes in any one flight. These proposed special conditions contain additional mandatory post-flight inspection and maintenance action requirements associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT. These requirements add a rating definition in part 1.1 and mandate mandatory inspections in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA); instructions for installing and operating the engine; engine rating and operating limitations; instrument connection; and endurance testing.
The current requirements of the endurance test under § 33.87 represent a typical airplane flight profile and the severity of the takeoff rating. Therefore, the endurance test under § 33.87 covers normal, all-engines-operating takeoff conditions for which the engine control system limits the engine to the takeoff thrust rating. It is intended to represent the airplane flight profile during takeoff under specified ambient temperatures for a time until the mandatory inspection and maintenance actions can be performed.
These proposed special conditions require additional test cycles that include at least a 150 hours of engine operation as specified in § 33.87(a), to demonstrate the engine is capable of performing the Rated TOTHAT rating during AEO conditions without disassembly or modification.
The associated engine deterioration, after use of the Rated TOTHAT, is not known without the intervening mandatory inspections in these special conditions. These mandatory inspections ensure the engine will continue to comply with its certification basis, which includes these proposed special conditions, after any use of the Rated TOTHAT. The applicant is expected to assess the deterioration from use of the Rated TOTHAT. The airworthiness limitations section (ALS) must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.
These requirements maintain a level of safety equivalent to the level intended by the applicable airworthiness standards in effect on the date of application.
As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model. Should SAE apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only the Rated TOTHAT features on the Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model. It is not a rule of general applicability and applies only to SAE, who requested FAA approval of this engine feature.
Aircraft, Engines, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes, the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for SAE, Silvercrest-2 SC–2D engine model.
“Rated Take-off Thrust at High Ambient Temperature” (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine during takeoff operation. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under one engine inoperative (OEI) conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.
In addition to the airworthiness standards in 14 CFR part 33, effective February 1, 1965, amendments 33–1 through 33–34 applicable to the engine and the Rated TOTHAT, the following special conditions apply:
(a) Section 33.4, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
(1) The ALS must prescribe the mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions associated with any use of the Rated TOTHAT.
(2) The applicant must validate the adequacy of the inspections and maintenance actions required under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.
(3) The applicant must establish an in-service engine evaluation program to ensure the continued adequacy of the instructions for mandatory post-flight inspections and maintenance actions prescribed under paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions, and of the data for thrust assurance procedures required by paragraph 2(b)(2) of these special conditions. The program must include service engine tests or equivalent service engine test experience on engines of similar design and evaluations of service usage of the Rated TOTHAT.
(b) Section 33.5, Instruction manual for installing and operating the engine.
(1) Installation Instructions:
(i) The applicant must identify the means, or provisions for means, provided in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 2(e) of these special conditions.
(ii) The applicant must specify that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.
(iii) The applicant must specify that the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual crew selection at specified altitudes and temperatures in AEO conditions.
(2) Operating Instructions: The applicant must provide data on engine performance characteristics and variability to enable the airplane manufacturer to establish airplane thrust assurance procedures.
(c) Section 33.7, Engine ratings and operating limitations.
(1) Rated TOTHAT and the associated operating limitations are established as follows:
(i) The thrust is the same as the engine takeoff rated thrust with extended flat rating corner point.
(ii) The rotational speed limits are the same as those associated with the engine takeoff rated thrust.
(iii) The applicant must establish a gas temperature steady-state limit and, if necessary, a transient gas over temperature limit for which the duration is no longer than 30 seconds.
(iv) The use is limited to two periods of no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspections and maintenance actions prescribed by paragraph 2(a)(1) of these special conditions.
(2) The applicant must propose language to include in the type certificate data sheet specified in § 21.41 for the following:
(i) Rated TOTHAT and associated limitations.
(ii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that “Rated Takeoff Thrust at High Ambient Temperature (Rated TOTHAT) means the approved engine thrust developed under specified altitudes and temperatures within the operating limitations established for the engine. Use is limited to two periods, no longer than 10 minutes each under OEI conditions or 5 minutes each under AEO conditions in any one flight, for a maximum accumulated usage of 20 minutes in any one flight. Each flight where the Rated TOTHAT is used must be followed by mandatory inspection and maintenance actions.”
(iii) As required by § 33.5(b), Operating instructions, include a note stating that the engine thrust control system automatically resets the thrust on the operating engine to the Rated TOTHAT level when one engine fails during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures, and the Rated TOTHAT is available by manual selection when all engines are operational during takeoff at specified altitudes and temperatures.
(d) Section 33.28, Engine Control Systems.
The engine must incorporate a means, or a provision for a means, for automatic availability and automatic control of the Rated TOTHAT under OEI conditions and must permit manual activation of the Rated TOTHAT under AEO conditions.
(e) Section 33.29, Instrument connection.
The engine must:
(1) Have means, or provisions for means, to alert the pilot when the Rated TOTHAT is in use, when the event begins and when the time interval expires.
(2) Have means, or provision for means, which cannot be reset in flight, to:
(i) Automatically record each use and duration of the Rated TOTHAT, and
(ii) Alert maintenance personnel that the engine has been operated at the Rated TOTHAT and permit retrieval of recorded data.
(3) Have means, or provision for means, to enable routine verification of the proper operation of the means in paragraph 2(e)(1) and (e)(2) of these special conditions.
(f) Section 33.85(b), Calibration tests.
The applicant must base the calibration test on the thrust check at the end of the endurance test required by § 33.87 of these special conditions.
(g) Section 33.87, Endurance test.
(1) In addition to the applicable requirements of § 33.87(a):
(i) The § 33.87 endurance test must be modified as follows:
(A) Modify the thirty minute test cycle at the rated takeoff thrust in § 33.87(b)(2)(ii) to run one minute at rated takeoff thrust, followed by five minutes at the Rated TOTHAT, followed by the rated takeoff thrust for the remaining twenty-four minutes.
(B) The modified thirty minute period described above in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i)(A) must be repeated ten times in cycles 16 through 25 of the § 33.87 endurance test.
(2) After completion of the tests required by § 33.87(b), as modified in paragraph 2(g)(1)(i) above, and without intervening disassembly, except as needed to replace those parts described as consumables in the ICA, the applicant must conduct the following test sequence for a total time of not less than 120 minutes:
(i) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.
(ii) Eighty-eight minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
(iii) One minute at 50 percent of rated takeoff thrust.
(iv) Ten minutes at Rated TOTHAT.
(v) Ten minutes at rated maximum continuous thrust.
(vi) One minute at flight idle.
(3) The test sequence of § 33.87(b)(1) through (6) of these special conditions must be run continuously. If a stop occurs during these tests, the interrupted sequence must be repeated unless the applicant shows that the severity of the test would not be reduced if the current tests were continued.
(4) Where the engine characteristics are such that acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT results in a transient over temperature in excess of the steady-state temperature limit identified in paragraph 2(c)(1)(iii) of these special conditions, the transient gas overtemperature must be applied to each acceleration to the Rated TOTHAT of the test sequence in paragraph 2(g)(2) of these special conditions.
(h) Section 33.93, Teardown inspection.
The applicant must perform the teardown inspection required by § 33.93(a), after completing the endurance test prescribed by § 33.87 of these special conditions.
(i) Section 33.201, Design and test requirements for Early ETOPS eligibility.
In addition to the requirements of § 33.201(c)(1), the simulated ETOPS mission cyclic endurance test must include two cycles of 10 minute duration, each at the Rated TOTHAT; one before the last diversion cycle and one at the end of the ETOPS test.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Rockwell Collins, Inc. TSS–4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units that incorporate TSSA–4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) Rockwell Collins part numbers 810–0052–002/–003/–010/–011/–012/–100/–101 and are installed on airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by five
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 17, 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 Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 400 Collins Road NE., M/S 164–100, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498–0001; telephone: 888–265–5467 (U.S.) or 319–265–5467; fax: 319–295–4941 (outside U.S.); email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Paul Rau, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; phone: 316–946–4149; fax: 316–946–4107; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We were notified of five instances of air traffic control observing coasting (extrapolated stale data) automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data (ADS–B position/velocity data) on a related Rockwell Collins, Inc. platform that shares a common architecture with the TSS–4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units, Rockwell Collins part number (RCPN) 822–2132–001, that are installed on airplanes. The affected units incorporate TSSA–4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) RCPNs 810–0052–002/–003/–010/–011/–012/–100/–101. An investigation of the events determined that the ADS–B position and the Mode S/traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) altitude of the TSS–4100 are affected. The extrapolation of the data occurs with no warning to the crew.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in misleading position and/or altitude being reported by the airplane. Misleading altitude data can adversely affect TCAS and possibly lead to mid-air collision due to an incorrect initial resolution advisory (RA) and/or an incorrect RA modification.
We reviewed Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA–4100–SIL–10–1, Revision No. 9, dated March 31, 2017. The service letter describes procedures for determining the part number of the affected FLS and the installation procedure for updating the FLS. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require updating the TSSA–4100 FLS on the TSS–4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Unit.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,000 products installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered by the manufacturer, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control manufacturer 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,
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 August 17, 2017.
None.
Rockwell Collins, Inc. TSS–4100 Traffic Surveillance System Processing Units, Rockwell Collins part number (RCPN) 822–2132–001, that incorporate TSSA–4100 Field Loadable Software (FLS) RCPN 810–0052–002/–003/–010/–011/–012/–100/–101; that are installed on but not limited to the airplanes listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (14) of this AD and are certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by five instances of air traffic control observing coasting (extrapolated stale data) automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast data (ADS–B position/velocity data). We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous extrapolation of position/velocity and altitude data that could result in misleading position and/or altitude being reported by the airplane and possibly lead to mid-air collision.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD or within the next 750 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, upgrade the TSSA–4100 FLS to RCPN 810–0052–013 or 810–0052–102, as applicable, following Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA–4100–SIL–10–1, Revision No. 9, dated March 31, 2017.
This AD allows credit for the action required in paragraph (g) of this AD if done before the effective date of this AD following either Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA–4100–SIL–10–1, Revision No. 6, dated September 19, 2016; Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA–4100–SIL–10–1, Revision No. 7, dated November 21, 2016; or Rockwell Collins Service Information Letter, TSSA–4100–SIL–10–1, Revision No. 8, dated January 4, 2017, provided the TSSA–4100 FLS is upgraded to RCPN 810–0052–013 or 810–0052–102, as applicable.
(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Rau, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209;
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Rockwell Collins, Inc., Collins Aviation Services, 400 Collins Road NE., M/S 164–100, Cedar Rapids, IA 52498–0001; telephone: 888–265–5467 (U.S.) or 319–265–5467; fax: 319–295–4941 (outside U.S.); email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish two restricted areas, R–5602A and R–5602B, over a portion of the Fort Sill, OK, R–5601 restricted area complex in support of an emerging kinetic and directed energy weapons training requirement for the United States (U.S.) Army Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill. This additional airspace would allow for the segregation of hazardous activities from non-participating traffic.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–2, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed to: U.S. Army Garrison, Directorate of Public Works, Attn: IMSI–PWE (Sarah Sminkey), Environmental Quality Division, Fort Sill, OK 73503–5100; email:
Colby Abbott, 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 would establish the restricted area airspace at Fort Sill, OK, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army hazardous above-the-horizon laser operations conducting counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) activities.
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 (FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–0144 and Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 at the Dockets Office (see
As the U.S. Army's Center of Excellence for Fires, Fort Sill has submitted a proposal to the FAA to establish two restricted areas overlying a portion of the Fort Sill R–5601 restricted area complex, and extending slightly eastward, to support an emerging kinetic and directed energy weapons training mission. The designated altitudes of the proposed restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 60,000 feet MSL.
Fort Sill has long been the U.S. Army's schoolhouse for traditional field artillery training and it has now been tasked to field advanced technology weapons, and train soldiers in their use for both field artillery and air defense artillery missions. Railguns, hypervelocity projectiles, and lasers being introduced at Fort Sill represent a technological leap in capability, and require additional high altitude segregated airspace to contain the hazardous activities and protect non-participating air traffic from those hazardous activities.
The primary activities associated with the proposed R–5602A would include high trajectory surface-to-surface kinetic weapons employment using existing firing points and impact areas, with occasional laser fires passing through R–5601 complex restricted area airspace and the proposed R–5602A before entering the proposed R–5602B restricted area. The proposed R–5602B
To leverage advanced technology weapons capabilities for training soldiers in emerging field artillery and air defense artillery missions, Fort Sill requires additional restricted area airspace. Through extensive safety analysis, the U.S. Army has determined that the volume of restricted area airspace proposed in R–5602A and R–5602B is the minimum amount required to contain the planned hazardous activities and protect non-participant air traffic in the area.
Minimal aeronautical impact is anticipated since the proposed restricted areas would be located above a portion of the existing R–5601 complex, which extends from the surface to 40,000 feet MSL, and the designated altitudes of the proposed restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish two new restricted areas, R–5602A and R–5602B, overlying a portion of the R–5601 complex located at Fort Sill, OK. The new restricted areas would support the U.S. Army fielding advanced technology weapons and training for emerging field artillery and air defense artillery missions. To effectively segregate non-participant air traffic from the hazardous activities associated with the use of the advanced technology weapons at Fort Sill, the proposed R–5602A and R–5602B restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL and be activated by a Notice to Airman (NOTAM).
The proposed lateral boundaries for R–5602A would overlie and extend upward over the ceilings of the R–5601A, R–5601B, and a portion of R–5601F restricted areas. The proposed lateral boundaries for R–5602B would extend a shelf of restricted area airspace approximately 8 nautical miles (NM) east beyond the R–5601A and R–5601F eastern boundaries. Collectively, the proposed R–5602A and R–5602B restricted areas and the existing R–5601 complex would fully contain planned hazardous activities within restricted area airspace from the surface to 60,000 feet MSL. Existing interagency procedures would be followed to further segregate hazardous activities from manned aircraft and space assets operating above 60,000 feet MSL.
The proposed designated altitudes for the proposed R–5602A and R–5602B restricted areas would extend upward from 40,000 feet MSL to 60,000 feet MSL. The altitudes are defined relative to MSL to highlight that the proposed area would be used for other than aircraft operations. From an air traffic perspective, establishing the proposed restricted areas for other than aircraft operations reduces the radar separation requirements for circumnavigating the proposed restricted areas and contributes to minimizing impacts to aviation.
The proposed time of designation for the proposed R–5602A and R–5602B restricted areas would be, “By NOTAM 0830–1630, Monday-Friday; other times by NOTAM.” The expected usage for the proposed R–5602A would be approximately 8 hours per day on most weekdays, consistent with in-garrison syllabus training. However, the expected usage for the proposed R–5602B would be much lower to approximately 25 days per year. Due to the heavy dependence on favorable weather and unpredictability of seasonal weather patterns, NOTAM activation is considered an operational necessity for both proposed restricted areas.
The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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 subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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.
Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°49′30″ N., long. 98°08′43″ W.; to lat. 34°36′36″ N., long. 98°08′43″ W.; to lat. 34°38′15″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to lat. 34°46′06″ N., long. 98°17′01″ W.; to the point of beginning.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to extend the geographical limits of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed extension will make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public and will allow for uniform and continuous service to the extended area of Savannah, Georgia. The proposed change is part of CBP's continuing program to use its personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public.
Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.
Please submit comments, identified by docket number, by one of the following methods:
•
•
Roger Kaplan, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, (202) 325–4543, or by email at
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to CBP will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
As part of its continuing efforts to use CBP's personnel, facilities, and resources more efficiently, and to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public, CBP is proposing to extend the limits of the Savannah, Georgia port of entry. The CBP ports of entry are locations where CBP officers and employees are assigned to accept entries of merchandise, clear passengers, collect duties, and enforce the various provisions of customs, immigration, agriculture, and related U.S. laws at the border. The term “port of entry” is used in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 8 for immigration purposes and in title 19 for customs purposes. For immigration purposes, Savannah, Georgia port of entry is classified as a Class A port in District 26 under 8 CFR 100.4(a).
Savannah, Georgia was designated as a customs port of entry by the President's message of March 3, 1913, concerning a reorganization of the U.S. Customs Service pursuant to the Act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 434; 19 U.S.C. 1). Executive Order 8367, dated March 5, 1940, established specific geographical boundaries for the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia.
The current boundaries of the Savannah port of entry begin at the intersection of US Highway 17 and Little Back River on the line between South Carolina and Georgia; thence in a general southeasterly direction through the Little Back River, Back River, Savannah River and South Channel to the mouth of St. Augustine Creek, a distance of 11.6 miles; thence in a straight line in a southwesterly direction to the intersection of Moore Avenue and DeRenne Avenue, a distance of 5.8 miles; thence in a straight line in a westerly direction to the intersection of Middle Ground Road and DeRenne Avenue, a distance of 2.7 miles; thence in a straight line in a westerly direction to the intersection of Garrard Avenue and Ogeechee Road, a distance of 2.4 miles; thence in a straight line in a northwesterly direction to the intersection of Louisville Road and Bourne Avenue, a distance of 6.2 miles; thence in a straight line in a northeasterly direction to the intersection of Augusta Road and Augustine Creek, a distance of 4.8 miles; thence in a general easterly direction along Augustine Creek to the Savannah River, a distance of 2.4 miles; thence in a straight line in an easterly direction to the Chatham County line on Coastal Highway and Little Back River (the point of the beginning), a distance of 1.4 miles. CBP has included a map of the current port limits in the docket as “Attachment: Port of Entry of Savannah (blue lines).”
Travel modes, trade volume, and transportation infrastructure have expanded greatly since 1940. For example, much of Savannah-Hilton Head International Airport is located beyond the current port limits, including the site of the proposed replacement Federal Inspection Service facility for arriving international travelers. Similarly, distribution centers and cold storage agricultural facilities that support the seaport are located outside existing port limits. As a result, the greater Savannah area's trade and travel communities do not know with certainty if they will be able to receive CBP services if they build facilities on the region's remaining undeveloped properties, almost all outside the boundaries of the port of entry.
To address these concerns regarding the geographic limits of the port, CBP is proposing to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) to extend the boundaries of the port of entry of Savannah, Georgia, to include the majority of Chatham County, Georgia, as well as a small portion of Jasper County, South Carolina. The
The new port limits of Savannah, Georgia, are proposed as follows:
From 32°14.588′ N.—081°08.455′ W. (where Federal Interstate Highway 95 crosses the South Carolina-Georgia state line) and extending in a straight line to 32°04.903′ N.—080°04.998′ W. (where Walls Cut meets Wright River and Turtle Island); then proceeding in a straight line to 31°52.651′ N.—081°03.331′ W. (where Adams Creek meets Green Island South); then proceeding northwest in a straight line to 32°00.280′ N.—081°17.00′ W. (where Highway 204 intersects Federal Interstate Highway 95); then proceeding along the length of Federal Interstate Highway 95 to the point of beginning at the state line. CBP has included a map of the proposed port limits in the docket as “Attachment: Port of Entry of Savannah (red lines).”
CBP routinely establishes, expands, and consolidates ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume of CBP-related activity in various parts of the country. This proposed amendment is not subject to the notice and public procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 because it relates to agency management and organization (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2) and 553(b)(3)(A)). Notwithstanding the above, CBP generally provides the public with an opportunity to comment on the establishment, expansion and consolidation of ports of entry.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
The proposed change is intended to expand the geographical boundaries of the Savannah, Georgia, port of entry, and make the boundaries more easily identifiable to the public. There are no new costs to the public associated with this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule merely expands the limits of an existing port of entry and does not impose any new costs on the public. Accordingly, we certify that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The rule will not have substantial direct effects 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The signing authority for this document falls under 19 CFR 0.2(a) because the extension of port limits is not within the bounds of those regulations for which the Secretary of the Treasury has retained sole authority. Accordingly, this notice of proposed rulemaking may be signed by the Secretary of Homeland Security (or his delegate).
This change is proposed under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101,
If the proposed port limits for Savannah, Georgia, are adopted, CBP will amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) as necessary to reflect the new port limits.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky through its Energy and Environment Cabinet (EEC) on November 10, 2016, for the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District). This SIP revision seeks to remove Stage II vapor control requirements for new and upgraded gasoline dispensing facilities and allow for the decommissioning of existing Stage II equipment in Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision is approvable because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0014 at
Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. Sheckler's phone number is (404) 562–9222. She can also be reached via electronic mail at
Stage I vapor recovery is a type of emission control system that captures gasoline vapors that are released when gasoline is delivered to a storage tank. The vapors are returned to the tank truck as the storage tank is being filled with fuel, rather than released to the ambient air. Stage II and onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) are two types of emission control systems that capture fuel vapors from vehicle gas tanks during refueling. Stage II systems are specifically installed at gasoline dispensing facilities and capture the refueling fuel vapors at the gasoline pump nozzle. The system carries the vapors back to the underground storage tank at the gasoline dispensing facility to prevent the vapors from escaping to the atmosphere. ORVR systems are carbon canisters installed directly on automobiles to capture the fuel vapors evacuated from the gasoline tank before they reach the nozzle. The fuel vapors captured in the carbon canisters are then combusted in the engine when the automobile is in operation.
Under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA, each state was required to submit a SIP revision to implement Stage II for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe, or extreme, primarily for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC)—a precursor to ozone formation.
CAA section 202(a)(6) also provides discretionary authority to the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. On May 16, 2012, in a rulemaking entitled “Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery and Stage II Waiver,” EPA determined that ORVR technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet for
On November 6, 1991, EPA designated and classified Jefferson County and portions for Bullitt and Oldham Counties in Kentucky (hereinafter referred to as the “Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area” or “Area”) as part of the five-county area in and around the Louisville, KY-IN, area as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
On March 4, 1993, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, on behalf of Jefferson County, submitted a SIP revision to address the Stage II requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. EPA approved that SIP revision, containing Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
On March 30, 2001, Kentucky submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard and an associated maintenance plan. The maintenance plan, as required under section 175A of the CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and VOC emissions in the Area would remain below the 1999 “attainment year” levels through the greater than ten-year period from 1999–2012. In making these projections, Kentucky factored in the emissions benefit of the Area's Stage II program, thereby maintaining this program as an active part of its 1-hour ozone SIP. The redesignation request and maintenance plan were approved by EPA, effective November 23, 2001. S
Subsequently, Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham counties in Kentucky (or portions thereof) were designated nonattainment as a part of a larger bi-state nonattainment area which included Kentucky and Indiana counties in and around the Louisville Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
On November 10, 2016, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a revision for the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP to EPA seeking modifications of the Stage II requirements in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. Specifically, it seeks the removal of Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of the Commonwealth of Kentucky's request is whether this requested action complies with section 110(l) of the CAA.
In its November 10, 2016, SIP revision, Kentucky used EPA's guidance entitled “Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures” to conduct a series of calculations to determine the potential impact on air quality of removing the Stage II
Table 1 shows that the removal of Stage II vapor recovery systems in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area starting in 2017 would have resulted and will result in a VOC emission decrease. If instead Stage II requirements are kept in place, VOC emissions will decrease by less, and it will be less beneficial to air quality in the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area to keep Stage II systems in operation.
The affected sources covered by the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area portion of Kentucky's Stage II vapor recovery requirements are sources of VOC. Other criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, and lead) are not emitted by gasoline dispensing facilities and will not be affected by the removal of Stage II controls.
The proposed revisions to Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
EPA is proposing to determine that Kentucky's technical analysis is consistent with EPA's guidance on removing Stage II requirements from a SIP, including as it relates to the decommissioning and phasing out of the Stage II requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Louisville Area. EPA is also making the preliminary determination that Kentucky's SIP revision is consistent with the CAA and with EPA's regulations related to removal of Stage II requirements from the SIP, and that these changes will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and therefore satisfy section 110(l).
In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Jefferson County Regulation 6.40, Standards
EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Kentucky's November 10, 2016, SIP revision that changes the Louisville Area's Stage II rule, Jefferson County Regulation 6.40,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 CAA; and
• does not provide 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 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of California regarding Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requirements for ambient ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”). The SIP submission is intended to revise a portion of the State's “infrastructure” SIP that, more broadly, provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the standards. We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
Any comments must arrive by August 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0265 at
Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR–2), EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3227,
Throughout this document, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address structural SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. The SIP submission required by these provisions is referred to as the infrastructure SIP. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. This proposed rule pertains to infrastructure SIP requirements for ambient air quality monitoring.
Each of the NAAQS revisions applicable to this proposed rule triggered the requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs, including provisions for ambient ozone monitoring. On July 18, 1997, the EPA revised the form and levels of the primary and secondary ozone standards to an 8-hour average of 0.08 parts per million (ppm).
Section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA requires states to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitoring to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data, and (ii) make data available to the EPA Administrator upon request. The EPA's implementing regulations for ambient monitoring regulations for the various NAAQS are found in 40 CFR part 58. Among the requirements for ozone monitoring, 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, 4.1(b) requires that “within an [ozone] network, at least one [ozone] site for each MSA, or [Combined Statistical Area (CSA)] if multiple MSAs are
California made SIP submissions in 2007 and 2014 to, among other things, address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) and the EPA's implementing regulations for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the submissions with respect to the ambient monitoring requirements with one exception:
The EPA's partial disapproval for ambient ozone monitoring established a deadline of May 2, 2018, for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) or for the State of California to submit, and the EPA to approve, an adequate SIP revision for this ozone monitoring deficiency for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the “Staff Report, [C]ARB Review of the San Joaquin Valley 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“2016 CARB Staff Report”) on August 24, 2016.
The 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP notes that states must meet federal monitoring regulations as part of the CAA infrastructure requirements and refers to the EPA's disapproval of the State's infrastructure SIP for ozone monitoring in the Bakersfield MSA.
We have reviewed the statements CARB made in its 2016 Bakersfield Ozone Monitoring SIP, the EPA's 2016 approval letter, and CARB's 2016 site relocation request.
Since the underlying basis of the EPA's 2014 disapproval has been adequately resolved (
In addition, the EPA previously approved an ozone emergency episode plan from El Dorado County APCD as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
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 proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve changes to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update definitions and make administrative edits to regulations for the Plantwide Applicability Limits and Florida's Small Business Assistance program. EPA is proposing to approve portions of a SIP revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection on July 1, 2011, to update definitions and make administrative edits to Plantwide Applicability Limits and the Small Business Assistance program. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0166 at
D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562–9089 or via electronic mail at
In the Final Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. The revision consists of a reasonably available control technology approval for a volatile organic compound emission source in Rhode Island, specifically, US Watercraft, LLC. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.
Written comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0025 at
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100 (Mail code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 617–918–1584, email
In the Final Rules Section of this
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by August 2, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
AMS merged the Poultry Programs with the Livestock and Seed Program and it is now the Livestock, Poultry, and Seed (LPS) Program. With this renewal all PY forms will be changed to LPS.
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Kankakee Grain Inspection, Inc. (Kankakee).
Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jacob Thein, 816–866–2223 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Illinois is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by the northern Bureau County line; the northern LaSalle and Grundy County lines; the northern Will County line east-southeast to Interstate 57; bounded on the east by Interstate 57 south to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 south to the Kankakee County line; bounded on the south by the southern Kankakee and Grundy County lines; the southern LaSalle County line west to State Route 17; State Route 17 west to U.S. Route 51; U.S. Route 51 north to State Route 18; State Route 18 west to State Route 26; State Route 26 south to State Route 116; State Route 116 south to Interstate 74; Interstate 74 west to the western Peoria County line; and bounded on the west by the western Peoria and Stark County lines; the northern Stark County line east to State Route 40; State Route 40 north to the Bureau County line.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Illinois is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Kankakee official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
GIPSA is announcing the designations of J.W. Barton Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Barton); Central Illinois Grain Inspection, Inc. (Central Illinois); Sioux City Inspection and Weighing Service Company (Sioux City); Northern Plains Grain Inspection Service, Inc. (Northern Plains) and Plainview Grain Inspection and Weighing Service, Inc. (Plainview) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.
Effective April 1, 2017.
Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.
Jacob Thein, (816) 866–2223,
In the March 22, 2017,
The current official agencies, Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview, were the only applicants for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.
GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 7(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Barton, Central Illinois, Sioux City, Northern Plains, and Plainview are qualified to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the
Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:
Section 7(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)).
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: State Grain Inspection, Inc. (State Grain).
Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891–0415 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Minnesota is assigned to this official agency.
Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Carver, Scott, Dakota, Brown, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Rice, Goodhue, Watonwan, Blue Earth, Waseca, Steele, Dodge, McLeod, and Sibley Counties.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Minnesota is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State Grain official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Washington Department of Agriculture (Washington).
Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891–0415 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic areas in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are assigned to this official agency.
The northern half of the State of Idaho down to the northern boundaries of Adams, Valley, and Lemhi Counties.
The entire State of Oregon, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.
The entire State of Washington, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by Washington.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic areas in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington is for the period beginning January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Washington official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
We are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by this Delegated State: Washington State Department of Agriculture (Washington).
Comments must be received by August 2, 2017.
Submit comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Sharon Lathrop, (816) 891–0415,
Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every 5 years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79(e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of Washington are assigned to this State agency.
All export port locations in the State of Washington.
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of Washington. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at
We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on December 31, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (Alabama).
Applications and comments must be received by August 2, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this Notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jacob Thein, 816–866–2223 or
Section 7(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 7(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Alabama is assigned to this official agency.
The entire State, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by Alabama.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Alabama official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71–87k.
The Port of Corpus Christi Authority, grantee of FTZ 122, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of voestalpine Texas, LLC (voestalpine), located in Portland, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 12, 2017.
voestalpine already has authority to produce hot briquetted iron (HBI) and related by-products using certain foreign-status materials within Subzone 122T. The current request would add a finished product and foreign-status materials to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt voestalpine from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials used in export production. On its domestic sales, voestalpine would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to HBI fines (duty-free) for the foreign-status materials noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The materials/components sourced from abroad include direct reduction iron remet and HBI fines (duty-free).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Richland-Lexington Airport District, grantee of FTZ 127, requesting subzone status for the facility of BGM America, Inc., located in Marion, South Carolina. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on June 13, 2017.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following site: 1313 West Highway 76, Marion (40 acres). No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 127.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 28, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
The City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC dba NEORig (Bauer), located in Conroe, Texas. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 5, 2017.
Bauer already has authority to produce pile drivers and leads, boring machinery, foundation construction equipment, foundation casings and related parts and sub-assemblies, tools and accessories for pile drivers, and
Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Bauer from customs duty payments on the foreign-status material/component used in export production. On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status material/component noted below Bauer would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to the company's finished products previously approved by the FTZ Board (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 5%). Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.
The material/component sourced from abroad is: Hydraulic roughneck (duty-free).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017.
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) will meet on July 25, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on January 12, 2017 pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482–2813.
The Materials Processing Equipment Technical Advisory Committee (MPETAC) will meet on August 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials processing equipment and related technology.
1. Opening remarks and introductions.
2. Presentation of papers and comments by the Public.
3. Discussions on results from last, and proposals from last Wassenaar meeting.
4. Report on proposed and recently issued changes to the Export Administration Regulations.
5. Other business.
6. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
Pursuant to Section 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations, 15 CFR parts 730–774 (2016) (“EAR” or the “Regulations”),
On March 17, 2008, Darryl W. Jackson, the then-Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement (“Assistant Secretary”), signed a TDO denying Mahan Airways' export privileges for a period of 180 days on the grounds that its issuance was necessary in the public interest to prevent an imminent violation of the Regulations. The TDO also named as denied persons Blue Airways, of Yerevan, Armenia (“Blue Airways of Armenia”), as well as the “Balli Group Respondents,” namely, Balli Group PLC, Balli Aviation, Balli Holdings, Vahid Alaghband, Hassan Alaghband, Blue Sky One Ltd., Blue Sky Two Ltd., Blue Sky Three Ltd., Blue Sky Four Ltd., Blue Sky Five Ltd., and Blue Sky Six Ltd., all of the United Kingdom. The TDO was issued
The TDO subsequently has been renewed in accordance with Section 766.24(d), including most recently on December 30, 2016.
On May 21, 2015, the TDO was modified to add Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading as respondents. Sky Blue Bird Group and its chief executive officer Issam Shammout were added to the TDO as related persons as part of the July 13, 2015 renewal order.
On June 5, 2017, BIS, through its Office of Export Enforcement (“OEE”), submitted a written request for renewal of the TDO. The written request was made more than 20 days before the scheduled expiration of the current TDO, which issued on December 30, 2016. Notice of the renewal request also was provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading in accordance with Sections 766.5 and 766.24(d) of the Regulations. No opposition to the renewal of the TDO has been received. Furthermore, no appeal of the related person determinations made as part of the September 3, 2010, February 25, 2011, August 24, 2011, April 9, 2012, February 4, 2013, and July 13, 2015 renewal or modification orders has been made by Kosarian Fard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, or Issam Shammout.
Pursuant to Section 766.24, BIS may issue or renew an order temporarily denying a respondent's export privileges upon a showing that the order is necessary in the public interest to prevent an “imminent violation” of the Regulations. 15 CFR 766.24(b)(1) and 776.24(d). “A violation may be `imminent' either in time or degree of likelihood.” 15 CFR 766.24(b)(3). BIS may show “either that a violation is about to occur, or that the general circumstances of the matter under investigation or case under criminal or administrative charges demonstrate a likelihood of future violations.”
OEE's request for renewal is based upon the facts underlying the issuance of the initial TDO and the TDO renewals in this matter and the evidence developed over the course of this investigation indicating a blatant disregard of U.S. export controls and the TDO. The initial TDO was issued as a result of evidence that showed that Mahan Airways and other parties engaged in conduct prohibited by the EAR by knowingly re-exporting to Iran three U.S.-origin aircraft, specifically Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 1–3”), items subject to the EAR and classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 9A991.b, without the required U.S. Government authorization. Further evidence submitted by BIS indicated that Mahan Airways was involved in the attempted re-export of three additional U.S.-origin Boeing 747s (“Aircraft 4–6”) to Iran.
As discussed in the September 17, 2008 renewal order, evidence presented by BIS indicated that Aircraft 1–3 continued to be flown on Mahan Airways' routes after issuance of the TDO, in violation of the Regulations and the TDO itself.
The March 9, 2010 Renewal Order also noted that a court in the United Kingdom (“U.K.”) had found Mahan Airways in contempt of court on February 1, 2010, for failing to comply with that court's December 21, 2009 and January 12, 2010 orders compelling Mahan Airways to remove the Boeing 747s from Iran and ground them in the Netherlands. Mahan Airways and the Balli Group Respondents had been litigating before the U.K. court concerning ownership and control of Aircraft 1–3. In a letter to the U.K. court dated January 12, 2010, Mahan Airways' Chairman indicated,
The September 3, 2010 renewal order discussed the fact that Mahan Airways' violations of the TDO extended beyond operating U.S.-origin aircraft and attempting to acquire additional U.S.-origin aircraft. In February 2009, while subject to the TDO, Mahan Airways participated in the export of computer motherboards, items subject to the Regulations and designated as EAR99, from the United States to Iran, via the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), in violation of both the TDO and the Regulations, by transporting and/or forwarding the computer motherboards from the UAE to Iran. Mahan Airways' violations were facilitated by Gatewick LLC, which not only participated in the transaction, but also has stated to BIS that it acted as Mahan Airways' sole booking agent for cargo and freight forwarding services in the UAE.
Moreover, in a January 24, 2011 filing in the U.K. court, Mahan Airways asserted that Aircraft 1–3 were not being used, but stated in pertinent part that the aircraft were being maintained in Iran especially “in an airworthy condition” and that, depending on the outcome of its U.K. court appeal, the aircraft “could immediately go back into service . . . on international routes into and out of Iran.” Mahan Airways' January 24, 2011 submission to U.K. Court of Appeal, at p. 25, ¶¶ 108, 110.
In addition, as first detailed in the July 1, 2011 and August 24, 2011 orders, and discussed in subsequent renewal orders in this matter, Mahan Airways also continued to evade U.S. export control laws by operating two Airbus A310 aircraft, bearing Mahan Airways' livery and logo, on flights into and out of Iran.
The August 2012 renewal order also found that Mahan Airways had acquired another Airbus A310 aircraft subject to the Regulations, with MSN 499 and Iranian tail number EP–VIP, in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.
The February 4, 2013 Order laid out further evidence of continued and additional efforts by Mahan Airways and other persons acting in concert with Mahan, including Kral Aviation and another Turkish company, to procure U.S.-origin engines—two GE CF6–50C2 engines, with MSNs 517621 and 517738, respectively—and other aircraft parts in violation of the TDO and the Regulations.
On December 31, 2013, Kral Aviation was added to BIS's Entity List, Supplement No. 4 to Part 744 of the Regulations.
The July 31, 2013 Order detailed additional evidence obtained by OEE showing efforts by Mahan Airways to obtain another GE CF6–50C2 aircraft engine (MSN 528350) from the United States via Turkey. Multiple Mahan employees, including Mehdi Bahrami, were involved in or aware of matters related to the engine's arrival in Turkey from the United States, plans to visually inspect the engine, and prepare it for shipment from Turkey.
Mahan sought to obtain this U.S.-origin engine through Pioneer Logistics Havacilik Turizm Yonetim Danismanlik (“Pioneer Logistics”), an aircraft parts supplier located in Turkey, and its director/operator, Gulnihal Yegane, a Turkish national who previously had conducted Mahan related business with Mehdi Bahrami and Ali Eslamian. Moreover, as referenced in the July 31, 2013 Order, a sworn affidavit by Kosol Surinanda, also known as Kosol Surinandha, Managing Director of Mahan's General Sales Agent in Thailand, stated that the shares of Pioneer Logistics for which he was the listed owner were “actually the property of and owned by Mahan.” He further stated that he held “legal title to the shares until otherwise required by Mahan” but would “exercise the rights granted to [him] exactly and only as instructed by Mahan and [his] vote and/or decisions [would] only and exclusively reflect the wills and demands of Mahan[.]”
The January 24, 2014 Order outlined OEE's continued investigation of Mahan Airways' activities and detailed an attempt by Mahan, which OEE thwarted, to obtain, via an Indonesian aircraft parts supplier, two U.S.-origin Honeywell ALF–502R–5 aircraft engines (MSNs LF5660 and LF5325), items subject to the Regulations, from a U.S. company located in Texas. An invoice of the Indonesian aircraft parts supplier dated March 27, 2013, listed Mahan Airways as the purchaser of the engines and included a Mahan ship-to address. OEE also obtained a Mahan air waybill dated March 12, 2013, listing numerous U.S.-origin aircraft parts subject to the Regulations—including, among other items, a vertical navigation gyroscope, a transmitter, and a power control unit—being transported by Mahan from Turkey to Iran in violation of the TDO.
The July 22, 2014 Order discussed open source evidence from the March–June 2014 time period regarding two BAE regional jets, items subject to the Regulations, that were painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways and operating under Iranian tail numbers EP–MOK and EP–MOI, respectively.
The January 16, 2015 Order detailed evidence of additional attempts by Mahan Airways to acquire items subject the Regulations in further violation of the TDO. Specifically, in March 2014, OEE became aware of an inertial reference unit bearing serial number 1231 (“the IRU”) that had been sent to the United States for repair. The IRU is subject to the Regulations, classified under ECCN 7A103, and controlled for missile technology reasons. Upon closer inspection, it was determined that IRU came from or had been installed on an Airbus A340 aircraft bearing MSN 056. Further investigation revealed that as of approximately February 2014, this aircraft was registered under Iranian tail number EP–MMB and had been painted in the livery and logo of Mahan Airways.
The January 16, 2015 Order also described related efforts by the Departments of Justice and Treasury to further thwart Mahan's illicit procurement efforts. Specifically, on August 14, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland filed a civil forfeiture complaint for the IRU pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 401(b) that resulted in the court issuing an Order of Forfeiture on December 2, 2014. EP–MMB remains listed as active in Mahan Airways' fleet.
Additionally, on August 29, 2014, OFAC blocked the property and interests in property of Asian Aviation Logistics of Thailand, a Mahan Airways affiliate or front company, pursuant to Executive Order 13224. In doing so, OFAC described Mahan Airways' use of Asian Aviation Logistics to evade sanctions by making payments on behalf of Mahan for the purchase of engines and other equipment.
The May 21, 2015 modification order detailed the acquisition of two aircraft, specifically an Airbus A340 bearing MSN 164 and an Airbus A321 bearing MSN 550, that were purchased by Al Naser Airlines in late 2014/early 2015 and are currently located in Iran under the possession, control, and/or ownership of Mahan Airways.
The May 21, 2015 modification order also laid out evidence showing the respondents' attempts to obtain other controlled aircraft, including aircraft physically located in the United States in similarly-patterned transactions during the same recent time period. Transactional documents involving two Airbus A320s bearing MSNs 82 and 99, respectively, again showed Ali Abdullah Alhay signing sales agreements for Al Naser Airlines.
The July 13, 2015 Order outlined evidence showing that Al Naser Airlines' attempts to acquire aircraft on behalf of Mahan Airways extended beyond MSNs 164 and 550 to include a total of nine aircraft.
The January 7, 2016 Order discussed evidence that Mahan Airways had begun actively flying EP–MMD, another
The July 7, 2016 Order described Mahan Airways' acquisition of a BAE Avro RJ–85 aircraft (MSN E2392) in violation of the TDO and its subsequent registration under Iranian tail number EP–MOR.
The December 30, 2016 Order outlined Mahan's continued operation of multiple Airbus aircraft, including EP–MMD (MSN 164), EP–MMF (MSN 376), and EP–MMH (MSN 391), which were acquired from or through Al Naser Airlines in violation of the TDO as previously detailed in the July 13, 2015 and January 7, 2016 renewal orders, respectively. Publicly available flight tracking information showed that the aircraft were operated on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Beijing, China, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Istanbul, Turkey.
OEE's June 5, 2017 renewal request includes similar evidence regarding Mahan's continuing violation of the TDO by operating multiple Airbus aircraft subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to, aircraft procured from or through Al Naser Airlines, on flights into and out of Iran, including from/to Moscow, Russia, Shanghai, China and Kabul, Afghanistan.
OEE has also obtained additional information regarding the suspected diversion of an Airbus A340 that was first mentioned in its December 13, 2016 renewal request. This aircraft had been located and registered in the United States under tail number N278TA and was subject to the Regulations. At the time the December 30, 2016 renewal order was issued, this aircraft had been exported from the United States to Indonesia contrary to filings made with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). These filings with the FAA inaccurately indicated, first, that the aircraft was being flown to Almaty, Kazakhstan, and then indicated that the aircraft should be de-registered in the United States because it was being exported to, and going to be registered in, Ukraine. Additional documents obtained by OEE included a copy of the sales agreement relating to this aircraft, which listed a UAE company as the purchaser. Moreover, an industry database indicated that the aircraft was being transferred or sold to Mahan Airways. After multiple attempts by OEE to contact the UAE company regarding OEE's concerns about any sale or other diversion to Mahan Airways, the same industry database was revised so as to indicate that the sale/transfer to Mahan had been cancelled. The timing of this revision is suspicious. Moreover, as discussed in prior renewal orders, Mahan Airways has used a broad network of agents and affiliates to unlawfully procure and attempt to procure aircraft and other items subject to the Regulations via third countries and sham or masked transactions, including via the UAE and Indonesia.
Under the applicable standard set forth in Section 766.24 of the Regulations and my review of the entire record, I find that the evidence presented by BIS convincingly demonstrates that the denied persons have acted in violation of the Regulations and the TDO; that such violations have been significant, deliberate and covert; and that given the foregoing and the nature of the matters under investigation, there is a likelihood of future violations. Therefore, renewal of the TDO is necessary to prevent imminent violation of the Regulations and to give notice to companies and individuals in the United States and abroad that they should continue to cease dealing with Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, and the other denied persons under the TDO in connection with export and reexport transactions involving items subject to the Regulations.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the EAR, or in any other activity subject to the EAR.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the EAR;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the EAR that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the EAR with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the EAR that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(e) of the EAR, Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202–4022. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 766.23(c)(2) and 766.24(e)(3) of the EAR, Pejman Mahmood Kosarayanifard, Mahmoud Amini, Kerman Aviation, Sirjanco Trading LLC, Ali Eslamian, Mahan Air General Trading LLC, Skyco (UK) Ltd., Equipco (UK) Ltd., Mehdi Bahrami, Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam Shammout may, at any time, appeal their inclusion as a related person by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202–4022.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. A renewal request may be opposed by Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa General Trading as provided in Section 766.24(d), by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be provided to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa General Trading and each related person, and shall be published in the
The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on July 20, 2017, 10:00 a.m. (Mountain Daylight Time), at Sundyne, 14845 W. 64th Avenue, Arvada, CO 80007. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.
1. Introductions and opening remarks by Sundyne Senior Management. Remarks by Matthew Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
2. FBI Special Agent Justin Maenius will present the economic espionage video “The Company Man” and discussion will follow.
3. Handling large unit exports from Sundyne.
4. Vestas and other presenters (UTAS).
5. Report by individual members on their industry and working groups.
6. Public Comments/New Business.
7. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sec. l0(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sec. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public. For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 6, 2017, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 15, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 § (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §§ 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) will meet on July 20 and 21, 2017, 8:30 a.m. (Pacific Daylight Time), at the University of California, Berkeley, Toll Room, Alumni Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on emerging technology and research activities, including those related to deemed exports.
1. Welcome Remarks & Update of ETRAC activities.
• Status of Industry Sectors being reviewed by the ETRAC: Electronics & Graphene Circuits, Graphene metamaterials, Robotics and Big Data, Optoelectronics & Photonics, Additive Manufacturing, Advanced materials, Autonomous Technology, and Hypersonics.
2. Export Control Issues and Research Being Conducted at the University of California-Berkeley.
3. Update on Export Control Issues.
4. Presentation by Jeff Welser, Vice President-IBM & Director of the Almaden Research Laboratory, San Jose, CA.
• Current research on: Cognitive Computing, Quantum Computing, Nanobiotechnology, Carbon nanotubes, Computational materials science, Amorphous semiconductors, and Atomic storage.
5. Comments from the Public.
6. Review of current emerging technology issues.
• Report on Tech Connect Conference and U.S.-European Scientific Research Collaboration Matchmaking event.
Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C.,
The open sessions will be accessible via teleconference to 25 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters of which would be likely to frustrate significant implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C.,
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
On June 1, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Manuel Morales (“Morales”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Morales was convicted of knowingly and intentionally combining, conspiring, confederating and agreeing with other persons, known and unknown, to export from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 540 rounds of 7.62 x 39 caliber ammunition and seven 7.62 x 39 caliber magazines, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Morales was sentenced to 50 months in prison with credit for time served, 36 months of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Morales's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Morales to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Morales.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Morales's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Morales's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Morales had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet on July 26 and 27, 2017, 9:00 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Springer.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 27, 2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2, (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting concerning trade secrets and commercial or financial information deemed privileged or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and the portion of the meeting concerning matters the disclosure of which would be likely to frustrate significantly implementation of an agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482–2813.
In the Matter of: Edwin Navarro Makasiar II, Inmate Number: 47704–424, D. Ray James Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 2000, Folkston, GA 31437.
On June 30, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Edwin Navarro Makasiar II (“Makasiar”) was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Makasiar was convicted of knowingly and willfully attempting to export from the United States to the Philippines defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, two Glock Model 23, .40 caliber pistols and approximately 2,500 rounds of .223 caliber and 5.56 mm ammunition, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses. Makasiar was sentenced to 60 months in prison, a $2,000 criminal fine, and a $200 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Makasiar's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Makasiar to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Makasiar.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Makasiar's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Makasiar's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Makasiar had an interest at the time of his conviction.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
On May 23, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was convicted of intentionally and knowingly conspiring and agreeing with other persons to knowingly and willfully export, and cause to be exported, from the United States to Mexico defense articles designated on the United States Munitions List, namely, 5.56 caliber rifles, without the required U.S. Department of State licenses.Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira was sentenced to 135 months in prison and a $200 assessment.
Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”)
BIS has received notice of Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira.
Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Jose Abraham Benavides-Cira had an interest at the time of his conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, license exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or engaging in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or from any other activity subject to the Regulations.
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482–4735.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
All deadlines for the submission of comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting date.
In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties having an APO within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of the initiation
In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, the Department finds that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that requests a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that, with regard to reviews requested on the basis of anniversary months on or after July 2017, the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
The Department is providing this notice on its Web site, as well as in its “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” notices, so that interested parties will be aware of the manner in which the Department intends to exercise its discretion in the future.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review. In addition, a domestic interested party or an interested party described in section 771(9)(B) of the Act must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which was produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Note that, for any party the Department was unable to locate in prior segments, the Department will not accept a request for an administrative review of that party absent new information as to the party's location. Moreover, if the interested party who files a request for review is unable to locate the producer or exporter for which it requested the review, the interested party must provide an explanation of the attempts it made to locate the producer or exporter at the same time it files its request for review, in order for the Secretary to determine if the interested party's attempts were reasonable, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.303(f)(3)(ii).
As explained in
The Department no longer considers the non-market economy (NME) entity as an exporter conditionally subject to an antidumping duty administrative reviews.
All requests must be filed electronically in Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) on Enforcement and Compliance's ACCESS
The Department will publish in the
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the period of review.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the 2015–2016 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. The review covers 160 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results. After analyzing the comments received, our final results remain unchanged from the preliminary results. Finally, we find that four companies had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
Effective July 3, 2017.
Andrew Medley or Alice Maldonado, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4987 and (202) 482–4682, respectively.
The review covers 160 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Mayao
On March 6, 2017, the Department published the
The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp.
All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of these issues and the corresponding recommendations in the Issues and Decision memorandum, which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
As noted in the
With respect to the remaining company (
We are assigning the following dumping margins to the respondents for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, as follows:
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Non-Selected Companies:
The
For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we used as the assessment rate the average of the cash deposit rates calculated for Mayao and Thai Union/Pakfood.
Consistent with our established practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Mayao, Thai Union/Pakfood, or any of the companies with accepted no shipment claims for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate effective during the POR if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, as well as those companies listed in the “Determination of No Shipments” section, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original less-than-fair value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.34 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of 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) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Every five years, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) and the International Trade Commission automatically initiate and conduct a review to determine whether revocation of a countervailing or antidumping duty order or termination of an investigation suspended under section 704 or 734 of the Act would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the case may be) and of material injury.
The following Sunset Reviews are scheduled for initiation in August 2017 and will appear in that month's
No Sunset Review of countervailing duty orders is scheduled for initiation in August 2017.
No Sunset Review of suspended investigations is scheduled for initiation in August 2017.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. The
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the Department will maintain and make available a service list for these proceedings. To facilitate the timely preparation of the service list(s), it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding contact the Department in writing within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Please note that if the Department receives a Notice of Intent to Participate from a member of the domestic industry within 15 days of the date of initiation, the review will continue. Thereafter, any interested party wishing to participate in the Sunset Review must provide substantive comments in response to the notice of initiation no later than 30 days after the date of initiation.
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this fourth sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (PRC) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, at the level indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice,
Effective July 3, 2017.
Karine Gziryan or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4081 or (202) 482–5193, respectively.
On June 10, 1991, the Department published in the
The merchandise covered by the order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent, but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. Also covered by the order is silicon metal containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains a higher aluminum content than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight (58 FR 27542, May 10, 1993). Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor-grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent of silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to this order. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, specifically the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the
Pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective orders is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 6, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the
Effective July 3, 2017.
Michael J. Heaney, 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) 482–4475.
On March 6, 2017, the Department published the
The products covered by this order are certain preserved mushrooms, whether imported whole, sliced, diced, or as stems and pieces. The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under subheadings: 2003.10.0127, 2003.10.0131, 2003.10.0137, 2003.10.0143, 2003.10.0147, 2003.10.0153, and 0711.51.0000 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.
We addressed the comments received by Dezhou Kaihang in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
In the
Consistent with the Department's assessment practice in non-market economy cases, we stated in the
The Department received no comments disagreeing with the methodology or analysis employed in the
Additionally, in the
No parties commented on this issue following the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. In these final results, Dezhou Kaihang's weighted-average dumping margin is zero. Accordingly, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the entries reported by Dezhou Kaihang without regard to antidumping duties. The Department also intends to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise from the exporters identified above as being part of the PRC-wide entity (including Kangfa) at the PRC-wide rate,
Pursuant to a refinement in the Department's non-market economy practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Dezhou Kaihang the cash deposit is zero percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters which are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but received a separate rate in a previous segment, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently-completed period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results and this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is automatically initiating the five-year reviews (Sunset Reviews) of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order(s) listed below. The International Trade Commission (the Commission) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notice of
The Department official identified in the
The Department's procedures for the conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth in its
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c), we are initiating Sunset Reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty order(s):
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the pertinent statute and Department's regulations, the Department's schedule for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past revocations and continuations, and current service lists, available to the public on the Department's Web site at the following address:
This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On April 10, 2013, the Department modified two regulations related to AD/CVD proceedings: The definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for these proceedings. Parties wishing to participate in any of these five-year reviews must file letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d). To facilitate the timely preparation of the public service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to a proceeding submit an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews can be very short, we urge interested parties who want access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (APO) to file an APO application immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b), wishing to participate in a Sunset Review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public meeting and webinar.
On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published in the
DOE will hold a public meeting on August 10, 2017 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a webinar. See the “Public Participation” section of this notice for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please see the, “Public Participation” section of this notice for additional information on attending the public meeting.
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–9870. Email:
On May 26, 2017, DOE published in the
The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the
Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 586–1214 or by email:
DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as tablets, checked upon entry into the building. Any person wishing to bring these devices into the Forrestal Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through security.
Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there have been recent changes regarding ID requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated Web site identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at
In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's Web site:
Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in the
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public meeting.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other relevant matters. The official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included on DOE's Web site:
On June 22, 2017, Three Sisters Irrigation District filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed McKenzie Reservoir Hydroelectric Facility Project would have an installed capacity of 300 kilowatts (kW), and would be located on the proposed 5.5-miles-long irrigation pipeline. The project would be located in the town of Sisters, Deschutes County, Oregon.
The proposed project would have an annual generation capacity of 1,300,000 kWh.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the 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 motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
YCWA proposes to: (1) Construct a flood control outlet at New Bullards Bar dam; (2) construct a tailwater depression system at New Colgate powerhouse; (3) modify the Our House diversion dam fish release outlet; (4) modify the Log Cabin diversion dam fish release outlet; (5) modify the Lohman Ridge diversion tunnel intake; (6) modify recreation facilities at New Bullards Bar reservoir, including construction of Kelly Ridge campground and recreation vehicle dump station; and (7) modify project roads.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title PROTEST, MOTION TO INTERVENE, COMMENTS, REPLY COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS, or PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
o.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Commission staff coordinated with the staff of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to conduct the annual oversight of the Find, Fix, Track and Report (FFT) program, as outlined in the March 15, 2012 Order,
Commission staff believes that the FFT and CE programs are meeting expectations with limited exceptions. Sampling for the 2016 program year indicated that the Regional Entities appropriately included 97.5 percent of the sampled possible violations in the FFT and CE programs and that all 123 possible violations have been adequately remediated. Commission staff's sample analysis indicated a decreasing number of documentation concerns, particularly with regard to the quality of the information contained in the FFT and/or CE postings. For example, Commission staff found that a few FFT or CE issues still lacked some of the information requested in NERC's Guidance for Self Reports document and necessary for the posted FFT or CE.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Eastern Market Access Project, proposed by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (DCP) in the above-referenced docket. DCP requests authorization to construct, install, modify, own, operate, and maintain natural gas facilities in Virginia and Maryland to provide 294,000 dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation service to Washington Gas Light Company and Mattawoman Energy, LLC's Mattawoman Energy Center, a power generation facility.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Eastern Market Access Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The proposed Eastern Market Access Project includes the following facilities:
• A new 24,370-horsepower (hp) natural gas compressor station and ancillary facilities, and two new taps for customer delivery at the existing Washington Gas Light Company Interconnect in Charles County, Maryland;
• one new 7,000-hp electric reciprocating compressor unit and discharge gas cooler, replacement of three gas coolers and compression cylinders for three existing compressors, and an increase to 30-inch-diameter discharge piping at the Loudoun Compressor Station in Loudoun County, Virginia;
• one new meter building to enclose existing equipment at the Loudoun Metering and Regulating Station in Loudoun County, Virginia; and
• re-wheeling of the compressor on an existing 17,400-hp electric unit and upgrading of two gas coolers at the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station in Fairfax County, Virginia.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before July 27, 2017.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP17–15–000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502–8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208–FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
1. By letter filed May 15, 2017, Essential Power Massachusetts, LLC informed the Commission that the exemptions from licensing for the Dwight Project No. 10675, originally issued September 11, 1992,
2. Nautilus Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the Dwight Project No. 10675, the Red Bridge Project No. 10676, the Putts Project No. 10677, and the Indian Orchard Project No. 10678. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Jacob A. Pollack, Vice President and Secretary, Nautilus Hydro, LLC, 9405 Arrowpoint Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on June 23, 2017, Chad N. Fowler, submitted for filing an application for authority to hold interlocking positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b), Part 45 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45 (2016) and Order No. 664.
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.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 7/1/2017.
Description: Tariff Amendment: OATT Attachment R Amendment Clarification to be effective 7/1/2017.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Moxie Freedom LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is July 17, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of proposed firm electric service and Sale of Surplus Products rates.
The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is proposing revised rates for the Loveland Area Projects (LAP) firm electric service and modifications to the existing rate schedule for Sale of Surplus Products. Current firm electric service rates, under Rate Schedule L–F10, are in effect through December 31, 2019, and the formula rate for the sale of surplus products, under Rate Schedule L–M1, is in effect through September 30, 2021. LAP consists of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project (Fry-Ark) and the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (P–SMBP)—Western Division (WD), which were integrated for marketing and rate-making purposes in 1989.
WAPA is proposing to lower the overall LAP firm electric service charges by 14 percent, as a result of rebalancing the charge components in formula-based Rate Schedule L–F10 by reducing the drought adder component and increasing the base component. The proposed rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay investments within the allowable periods. In addition, WAPA is proposing to modify Rate Schedule L–M1, which allows for the sale of generation and generation-related products in excess of LAP's firm electric service obligations, to add “energy” as a surplus product. WAPA will prepare a brochure providing detailed information on these proposed rates prior to the public information forums listed below. This brochure will be posted to WAPA's Web site at:
The consultation and comment period will begin July 3, 2017 and end October 2, 2017. WAPA will present a detailed explanation of the proposed rates and other modifications at public information forums on the following dates and times:
1. August 22, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. MDT, Denver, Colorado.
2. August 23, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. CDT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
WAPA will accept oral and written comments at public comment forums on the following dates and times:
1. August 22, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to no later than 12 noon MDT, Denver, Colorado.
2. August 23, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to no later than 12 noon CDT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
WAPA will accept written comments anytime during the consultation and comment period.
Written comments and requests to be informed of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions concerning the proposed rates submitted by WAPA to FERC for approval should be sent to: Michael D. McElhany, Acting Regional Manager, Rocky Mountain Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538–8986 or email
Public information and comment forum locations are:
1. Denver—Embassy Suites, 7001 Yampa Street, Denver, Colorado.
2. Sioux Falls—Holiday Inn, 100 West 8th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Mrs. Sheila D. Cook, Rates Manager, Rocky Mountain Region, Western Area Power Administration, 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, CO 80538–8986, telephone (970) 461–7211, email
On December 2, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Schedule L–F10 under Rate Order No. WAPA–167 for the period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019 (79 FR 72663–72670 (Dec. 8, 2014)).
The proposed annual revenue requirement for LAP firm electric service is $64.1 million. The existing charges in the current rate schedule are being reduced, as indicated in Table 1:
Under the current rate methodology, rates for LAP firm electric service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes investment repayment, interest, purchase power, operation and maintenance, and other expenses within the allowable period. The annual revenue requirement continues to be allocated equally between capacity and energy.
WAPA is proposing to place Rate Schedule L–F11 into effect for the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022. The proposed adjustment updates the base component with present costs and reduces the drought adder component to zero, as the drought-related debts are projected to be fully repaid in 2018.
Base component costs for the P–SMBP—WD have increased primarily due to inflationary annual and capital cost increases associated with incorporating three new out-year projections into the 5-year cost evaluation period into the current rate-setting PRS. Additional details of the P–SMBP PRS are explained in the P–SMBP—Eastern Division Rate Order No. WAPA–180.
Base component costs for Fry-Ark have decreased, even though the three new out-year projections for annual expenses and capital costs within the 5-year cost evaluation period include inflation. This decrease is caused by the annual expense projections in the current Fry-Ark rate-setting PRS being an average of $0.3 million per year lower than the annual expense projections in the previous rate-setting PRS. In addition to lower annual expenses, ancillary service revenue projections have also increased an average of $1.1 million per year over the previous projections; resulting in a net revenue increase of approximately $1.4 million per year. This net revenue helps offset the revenue requirement for firm electric service.
The net effect of these adjustments to the drought adder and base components results in an overall decrease to the LAP rate. A comparison of the current and proposed revenue requirements is shown in Table 2:
As a part of the current and proposed rate schedules, WAPA provides for a formula-based adjustment of the drought adder component of up to 2 mills/kWh. The 2 mills/kWh cap places a limit on the amount the drought adder component can be adjusted relative to associated drought costs to recover costs attributable to the drought adder formula rate for any one-year cycle. Continuing to identify the firm electric service revenue requirement using base and drought adder components will assist WAPA in the presentation of future impacts of droughts, demonstrate repayment of drought-related costs in the PRSs, and allow WAPA to be more responsive to changes caused by drought-related expenses. WAPA will continue to charge and bill its customers firm electric service rates for energy and capacity, which are the sum of the base and drought adder components. A comparison of the current and proposed components is shown in Table 3:
On August 12, 2016, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Schedule L–M1 under Rate Order No. WAPA–174, for the period beginning October 1, 2016, and ending September 30, 2021 (81 FR 56632–56652 (August 22, 2016)).
The proposed rates constitute a major rate adjustment, as defined by 10 CFR 903.2(e); therefore, WAPA will hold public information and public comment forums for this rate adjustment, pursuant to 10 CFR 903.15 and 903.16. WAPA will review all timely public comments and make amendments or adjustments to the proposals as appropriate. Proposed rates will be forwarded to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for approval on an interim basis.
WAPA is establishing firm electric service rates and sale of surplus products formula rates under the Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)) and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s); and other acts specifically applicable to the projects involved.
By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand, or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents WAPA initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates will be available for inspection and copying at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office located at 5555 East Crossroads Boulevard, Loveland, Colorado. These documents and supporting information will be posted on WAPA's Web site as they become available under the “2018 Rate Adjustment—Firm Power” section located at:
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), WAPA is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Proposed Firm Power Service and Sale of Surplus Products Rates.
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) is proposing revised rates for Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program—Eastern Division (P–SMBP—ED) firm power and firm peaking power service, and a new formula rate for sales of surplus products. Current firm power and firm peaking power service rates, under Rate Schedules P–SED–F12 and P–SED–FP12, are in effect through December 31, 2019.
WAPA is proposing to lower the overall charges for firm power and firm peaking power service by 19 percent, as a result of rebalancing the charge components in formula-based Rate Schedules P–SED–F12 and P–SED–FP12 by reducing the drought adder component, increasing the base component, and removing the voltage discount. The proposed rates will provide sufficient revenue to pay all annual costs, including interest expense, and repay investments within the allowable periods. In addition, WAPA is proposing a new formula rate for the sale of surplus products under Rate Schedule P–SED–M1. This new
The consultation and comment period will begin July 3, 2017 and end October 2, 2017. WAPA will present a detailed explanation of the proposed rates and other modifications at public information forums being held on the following dates and times:
1. August 22, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. MDT, Denver, Colorado.
2. August 23, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. CDT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
WAPA will accept oral and written comments at public comment forums on the following dates and times:
1. August 22, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to no later than 12 noon MDT, Denver, Colorado.
2. August 23, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to no later than 12 noon CDT, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
WAPA will accept written comments anytime during the consultation and comment period.
Written comments and/or requests to be informed of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) actions concerning the proposed rates submitted by WAPA to FERC for approval should be sent to: Mr. Robert J. Harris, Regional Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, 6th Floor, Billings, MT 59101–1266, or email
Public information and comment forum locations are:
1. Denver—Embassy Suites, 7001 Yampa Street, Denver, Colorado.
2. Sioux Falls—Holiday Inn, 100 West 8th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Mrs. Linda Cady-Hoffman, Rates Manager, Upper Great Plains Region, Western Area Power Administration, 2900 4th Avenue North, 6th Floor, Billings, MT 59101–1266, telephone: (406) 255–2920, email:
On December 2, 2014, the Deputy Secretary of Energy approved, on an interim basis, Rate Order No. WAPA–166 and Rate Schedules P–SED–F12 and P–SED–FP12 for the period beginning January 1, 2015, and ending December 31, 2019 (79 FR 72670–72677 (Dec. 8, 2014)).
WAPA's Upper Great Plains Region (UGP) is also proposing the removal of the 5 percent voltage discount currently in the existing P–SMBP—ED firm power rate schedule P–SED–F12 and removing it from the firm power revenue requirement determined in the FY 2016 PRS. The voltage discount was originally created by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) in its firm power rate schedules prior to the creation of WAPA. This discount was to compensate certain preference customers for providing “transmission” facilities otherwise provided by the BOR and later WAPA. The effect of providing this discount to certain customers is to raise the firm power rates to all customers to recover the dollars lost by providing the discount. By removing the voltage discount, the overall P–SMBP—ED firm power rate will be lower and all firm power customers will pay firm power rates on an equivalent basis. The original intent of the voltage discount has been met in its nearly 70 years of application. The voltage discount has been difficult to administer equitably among customers. It takes considerable staff time to administer, impedes simplifying power and energy billing, and adds complexity to solely Upper Great Plains (UGP) power billing. Removing the voltage discount is revenue neutral for WAPA.
With the removal of the voltage discount taken into account, the proposed total annual revenue requirement for P–SMBP—ED is $230.1 million for firm power and firm peaking power service. The existing P–SMBP—ED charges in the current rate schedules for firm power and firm peaking power are being reduced, as indicated in Table 1:
Under the current rate methodology, rates for P–SMBP—ED firm power and firm peaking power service are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement that includes investment repayment, interest, purchase power, operation and maintenance, and other expenses within the allowable period. The annual revenue requirement continues to be allocated equally between capacity and energy.
WAPA is proposing to place Rate Schedules P–SED–F13 and P–SED–FP13 into effect for the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022. The proposed adjustment updates the base component with present costs and reduces the drought adder component to zero, as the drought-related debts are projected to be fully repaid in 2018. The net effect of these adjustments results in an overall decrease to the P–SMBP—ED rates.
Base component costs for the P–SMBP—ED have increased primarily due to inflationary annual and capital cost increases associated with incorporating three new out-year projections into the 5-year cost evaluation period of the current rate-setting PRS. Concurrently, WAPA will be reducing the P SMBP—ED drought adder components of the firm power rates to zero recognizing the full repayment of drought costs in 2018. The anticipated net effect of these planned rate actions is the firm power rate charges for the P–SMBP—ED will be decreasing overall from the current rate charges. A comparison of the current and proposed components is listed in Table 2.
As a part of the current and proposed rate schedules, WAPA provides for a formula-based adjustment of the drought adder component of up to 2 mills/kWh. The 2 mills/kWh cap is intended to place a limit on the amount the drought adder component can be adjusted relative to associated drought costs to recover costs attributable to the drought adder formula rate for any one-year cycle. Continuing to identify the firm power service revenue requirement using base and drought adder components will assist WAPA in the presentation of future impacts of droughts, demonstrate repayment of drought-related costs in the PRS, and allow WAPA to be more responsive to changes caused by drought-related expenses. WAPA will continue to charge and bill its customers firm power and firm peaking power service rates for energy and capacity, which are the sum of the base and drought adder components.
In addition to the firm power and firm peaking power rate schedules, WAPA is proposing a new formula-based rate schedule, P–SED–M1, applicable to the sale of surplus energy and capacity products. The schedule includes reserves, regulation, frequency response, and energy. If WAPA UGP surplus products are available, the charge will be determined based on market rates, plus administrative costs. The customer will be responsible for acquiring transmission service necessary to deliver the product(s) for which a separate charge may be incurred. WAPA is proposing to place Rate Schedule P–SED–M1 into effect for the 5-year period beginning January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022.
The proposed rates constitute a major rate adjustment, as defined by 10 CFR 903.2(e); therefore, WAPA will hold the public information and public comment forums for this rate adjustment, pursuant to 10 CFR 903.15 and 903.16. WAPA will review all timely public comments and make amendments or adjustments to the proposals as appropriate. Proposed rates will be forwarded to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for approval on an interim basis.
WAPA is establishing firm power service rates, firm peaking power service rates, and sale of surplus
By Delegation Order No. 00–037.00B, effective November 19, 2016, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to WAPA's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect on an interim basis to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to FERC. Existing DOE procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).
All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents WAPA initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates will be available for inspection and copying at the Upper Great Plains Regional Office, located at 2900 4th Avenue North, 6th Floor, Billings, Montana. These documents and supporting information will be posted on WAPA's Web site as they become available under the “2018 Firm Rate Adjustment” section located at
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); and DOE NEPA Implementing Procedures and Guidelines (10 CFR part 1021), WAPA is in the process of determining whether an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement should be prepared or if this action can be categorically excluded from those requirements.
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Clean Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs” (EPA ICR No. 0220.13, OMB Control No. 2040–0168) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR No. 0220.12, which is currently approved through November 30, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0023, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kathy Hurld, Wetlands Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (4502T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202–566–1269; fax number: 202–566–1349; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
Request to assume CWA section 404 permit program. States/tribes must demonstrate that they meet the statutory and regulatory requirements (40 CFR 233) for an approvable program. Specified information and documents
States/tribes with assumed programs must be able to issue permits that assure compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Sufficient information must be provided in the application so that states/tribes, and federal agencies reviewing the permit are able to evaluate, avoid, minimize and compensate for any anticipated impacts resulting from the proposed project. EPA's assumption regulations establish required and recommended elements that should be included in the state/tribe's permit application, so that sufficient information is available to make a thorough analysis of anticipated impacts. (40 CFR 233.30). These minimum information requirements generally reflect the information that must be submitted when applying for a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (CWA section 404(h); CWA section 404(j); 40 CFR 230.10, 233.20, 233.21, 233.34, and 233.50; 33 CFR 325)).
EPA has an oversight role for assumed 404 permitting programs to ensure that state/tribal programs are in compliance with applicable requirements and that state/tribal permit decisions adequately consider, avoid, minimize and compensate for anticipated impacts. States/tribes must evaluate their programs annually and submit the results in a report to EPA. EPA's assumption regulations establish minimum requirements for the annual report (40 CFR 233.52).
The information included in the state/tribe's assumption request and the information included in a permit application is made available for public review and comment. The information included in the annual report to EPA is made available to the public. EPA does not make any assurances of confidentiality for this information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Collection Activities Associated with the SmartWay Transport Partnership” (EPA ICR No. 2265.03, OMB Control No. 2060–0663) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2017. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before September 1, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0482 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kathleen Martz, U.S. Environmental
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
SmartWay is open to organizations that own, operate, or contract with fleet operations, including truck, rail, barge, air and multi-modal carriers, logistics companies, and shippers. Organizations that do not operate fleets, but that are working to strengthen the freight industry, such as industry trade associations, state and local transportation agencies and environmental groups, also may join as SmartWay affiliates. All organizations that join SmartWay are asked to provide EPA with information as part of their SmartWay registration to annually benchmark their transportation-related operations and improve the environmental performance of their freight activities.
A company joins SmartWay when it completes and submits a SmartWay Excel-based tool (“reporting tool”) to EPA. The data outputs from the submitted tool are used by partners and SmartWay in several ways. First, the data provides confirmation that SmartWay partners are meeting established objectives in their Partnership Agreement. The reporting tool outputs enable EPA to assist SmartWay partners as appropriate, and to update them with environmental performance and technology information that empower them to improve their efficiency. This information also improves EPA's knowledge and understanding of the environmental and energy impacts associated with goods movement, and the effectiveness of both proven and emerging strategies to lessen those impacts.
In addition to requesting annual freight transportation-related data, EPA may ask its SmartWay partners for other kinds of information which could include opinions and test data on the effectiveness of new and emerging technology applications, sales volumes associated with SmartWay-recommended vehicle equipment and technologies, the reach and value of partnering with EPA through the SmartWay Partnership, and awareness of the SmartWay brand. In some instances, EPA might query other freight industry representatives (not just SmartWay partners), including trade and professional associations, nonprofit environmental groups, energy and community organizations, and universities, and a small sampling of the general public.
This ICR estimates that approximately 3,500 respondent partners will incur burden associated with SmartWay in the first year, with a growth of 320 partners per year projected into the future. The estimated average burden time per respondent is 2.65 hours annually. This is an average across all SmartWay partners, regardless of whether they are affiliates, shippers, carriers or logistics companies. The average also includes 150 consumer and industry respondents who spend far less time, providing the SmartWay program with basic information on their awareness of the program. Among respondent partners the burden hours are typically higher for larger companies with complex fleets, than for smaller companies.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
(1) Adjustments associated with increased interest in SmartWay, and thus, an increase in new annual respondents, as well as robust program retention practices, leading to increased number of existing respondent partners reporting annually, increase in the number of applications for the SmartWay Excellence Awards and the affiliate challenge annually;
(2) Increased burden associated with the SmartWay Tractor and Trailer program; and,
(3) Reduced burden due to EPA's change in policy for submitting Awards materials electronically, rather than by mail.
This document was received by the office of the Federal Register on June 27, 2017.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 20, 2017.
1. D. Thomas Boyer, Bryan, Ohio, individually and the D. Thomas Boyer Control Group, consisting of D. Thomas Boyer, Bryan, Ohio; Virginia Boyer Egan, Bryan, Ohio; and Charles D. Boyer, Bryan, Ohio; to retain voting shares of Corn City State Bank, Deshler, Ohio.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Nicholas Bush (202–326–2848), Bureau of Competition, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 26, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 26, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc., File No. 161–0207” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc., File No. 161–0207” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary,
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC Web site to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before July 26, 2017. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted for public comment, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Alimentation Couche-Tard Inc. (“ACT”) and CST Brands, Inc. (“CST”) (collectively, the “Respondents”). The Consent Agreement is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that likely would result from ACT's proposed acquisition of CST.
Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, ACT must divest to a Commission-approved buyer certain CST retail fuel outlets and related assets in 70 local markets in 16 metropolitan statistical areas (“MSAs”), and at the buyer's option, an ACT site in one local market. The divestiture must be completed no later than 75 days after the closing of ACT's acquisition of CST or 14 days after the Consent Agreement is issued as final. The Commission and Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business through the date the Commission-approved buyer acquires the outlet.
The Commission has placed the proposed Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make it final.
Respondent ACT, a publicly traded company headquartered in Laval, Quebec, Canada, operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets throughout the United States and the world. ACT's current U.S. network consists of over 6,050 stores located in 41 states. Nearly 4,700 locations are company-operated, making ACT the largest convenience store operator in terms of company-owned stores and the second-largest chain overall in the country. Approximately 88 percent of ACT's company-operated locations also sell fuel. ACT convenience store locations operate primarily under the Circle K and Kangaroo Express banners, while its retail fuel outlets operate under a variety of company and third-party brands.
Respondent CST operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets in the United States and Canada. With 1,146 convenience stores and retail fuel outlets in the United States, CST is one of the largest chains in the country. CST's U.S. convenience stores operate primarily under the Corner Store banner, while its retail fuel outlets operate primarily under the Valero brand. CST also is the general partner and operator of CrossAmerica Partners LP, a publicly traded master limited partnership that offers wholesale fuels marketing, and owns and operates convenience stores and retail fuel outlets.
On August 21, 2016, ACT, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Circle K Stores, Inc., entered into an agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of CST for $4.4 billion, with CST surviving post-acquisition as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Circle K Stores, Inc. (the “Transaction”). The Transaction would cement ACT's position as one of the largest operators of retail fuel outlets in the United States.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Transaction, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition for the retail sale of gasoline and diesel in 71 local markets across 16 MSAs.
The Commission's Complaint alleges that relevant product markets in which to analyze the Transaction are the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel. Consumers require gasoline for their gasoline-powered vehicles and can purchase gasoline only at retail fuel outlets. Likewise, consumers require diesel for their diesel-powered vehicles and can purchase diesel only at retail fuel outlets. The retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel constitute separate relevant markets because the two are not interchangeable—vehicles that run on gasoline cannot run on diesel and vehicles that run on diesel cannot run on gasoline.
The Commission's Complaint alleges the relevant geographic markets in which to assess the competitive effects of the Transaction are 71 local markets within the following MSAs: Phoenix, Arizona; El Paso, Texas; Tucson, Arizona; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Corpus Christi, Texas; Austin, Texas; Shreveport, Louisiana; Albany, Georgia; Cleveland, Ohio; Las Cruces, New Mexico; Savannah, Georgia; Sierra Vista, Arizona; and Warner Robins, Georgia.
The geographic markets for the retail sale of gasoline are highly localized, generally ranging from a few blocks to a few miles. None of the relevant geographic markets exceeds three driving miles from an overlapping retail fuel outlet. Fueling up on gasoline is rarely a destination trip for a consumer and therefore consumers are likely to frequent retail fuel outlets close to their planned routes. Each particular geographic market is unique, with factors such as commuting patterns, traffic flows, and outlet characteristics playing important roles in determining the scope of the geographic market. The geographic markets for the retail sale of diesel are similar to the corresponding geographic markets for retail gasoline as diesel consumers exhibit the same preferences and behaviors as gasoline consumers.
The Transaction would substantially increase the market concentration in each of the 71 local markets, resulting in highly concentrated markets. In ten local markets, the Transaction would result in a monopoly. In 20 local markets, the Transaction would reduce the number of independent market participants from three to two. In 41 local markets, the Transaction would reduce the number of independent market participants from four to three.
The Transaction would substantially lessen competition for the retail sale of gasoline and the retail sale of diesel in these local markets. Retail fuel outlets compete on price, store format, product offerings, and location, and pay close attention to competitors in close proximity, on similar traffic flows, and with similar store characteristics. The combined entity would be able to raise prices unilaterally in markets where CST is ACT's only or closest competitor. Absent the Transaction, CST and ACT would continue to compete head to head in these local markets.
Moreover, the Transaction would increase the likelihood of coordination in local markets where only three or two independent market participants would remain. Two aspects of the retail fuel industry make it vulnerable to coordination. First, retail fuel outlets post their fuel prices on price signs that are visible from the street, allowing competitors to observe each other's fuel prices without difficulty. Second, retail fuel outlets regularly track their competitors' fuel prices and change their own prices in response. These repeated interactions give retail fuel outlets familiarity with how their competitors price and how their competitors respond to their own prices.
Entry into each relevant market would not be timely, likely, or sufficient to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects arising from the Acquisition. Significant entry barriers include the availability of attractive real estate, the time and cost associated with constructing a new retail fuel outlet, and the time associated with obtaining necessary permits and approvals.
The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the Transaction's anticompetitive effects by requiring ACT to divest certain CST retail fuel outlets and related assets in 70 local markets, and an ACT site in one local market at the buyer's option, to Empire Petroleum Partners (“Empire”). Empire is a retail operator and wholesale fuel distributor doing business in 26 states; its executive team has decades of experience with some of the industry's largest players. The Commission is satisfied that Empire is a qualified acquirer of the divested assets.
The proposed Consent Agreement requires ACT to divest to Empire CST's retail fuel outlets in 70 local markets. In the remaining local market, located in Albany, Georgia, the ACT outlet was damaged by a tornado in early 2017. To remedy potential competitive concerns in this local market, the Consent Agreement requires ACT to give Empire the option of acquiring the overlapping ACT site. If Empire declines the option, the Consent Agreement prohibits ACT, for ten years, from restricting the use of the property as a retail fuel outlet in any future sale. The proposed Consent Agreement requires ACT to divest the assets to Empire no later than 75 days after the Transaction closes or 14 days after the Commission issues the Consent Agreement as final.
The proposed Consent Agreement also requires that ACT provide transitional assistance to Empire for one year, with an option for Empire to extend the period for an additional year. Empire may extend the period for a third year, but only with Commission approval. ACT and Empire have entered into a Transition Services Agreement, whereby ACT has agreed to allow Empire to continue using the CST brand names and the store-specific licenses and permits during the transitional assistance period. In addition, ACT has agreed to provide temporary wholesale fuel supply to Empire on the same terms CST was receiving, giving Empire time to negotiate its own wholesale supply contracts.
In addition to requiring outlet divestitures, the proposed Consent Agreement also requires ACT to provide the Commission notice, for a period of ten years, of certain acquisitions in the 71 local markets at issue. Specifically, the Consent Agreement requires ACT to give the Commission notice of future acquisitions of Commission-identified retail fuel outlets located in the same local markets as the divested assets.
The proposed Consent Agreement contains additional provisions designed to ensure the adequacy of the proposed relief. For example, Respondents have agreed to an Order to Maintain Assets that will be issued at the time the proposed Consent Agreement is accepted for public comment. The Order to Maintain Assets requires Respondents to operate and maintain each divestiture outlet in the normal course of business, through the date the store is ultimately divested to a buyer. During this period, and until such time as Empire no longer requires transitional assistance, the Order the Maintain Assets authorizes the Commission to appoint an independent third party as a Monitor to oversee the Respondents' compliance with the requirements of the proposed Consent Agreement.
The Commission does not intend this analysis to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
This is to announce the cancelation of a meeting, Research Grants for Preventing Violence and Violence
This meeting was announced in the
Gwendolyn H. Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H., Deputy Associate Director for Science, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F–63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (770) 488–1430.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by September 1, 2017.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of following:
1. Access CMS' Web site address at
2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to
3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786–1326.
William Parham at (410) 786–4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111–148, was enacted on March 23, 2010, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111–152, was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively known as the “Affordable Care Act.” The Affordable Care Act extended MHPAEA to apply to the individual health insurance market. Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) final regulation regarding essential health benefits (EHB) requires health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered health insurance coverage in the individual and small group markets, through an Exchange or outside of an Exchange, to comply with the requirements of the MHPAEA regulations in order to satisfy the requirement to cover EHB (45 CFR 147.150 and 156.115).
MHPAEA section 512(b) specifically amends the Public Health Service (PHS) Act to require plan administrators or health insurance issuers to provide, upon request, the criteria for medical necessity determinations made with respect to MH/SUD benefits to current or potential participants, beneficiaries, or contracting providers. The Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (75 FR 5410, February 2, 2010) and the Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 set forth rules for providing criteria for medical necessity determinations. CMS oversees non-Federal governmental plans and health insurance issuers.
MHPAEA section 512(b) specifically amends the PHS Act to require plan administrators or health insurance issuers to supply, upon request, the reason for any denial or reimbursement of payment for MH/SUD services to the participant or beneficiary involved in the case. The Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (75 FR 5410, February 2, 2010) and the Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 implement 45 CFR 146.136(d)(2), which sets forth rules for providing reasons for claims denial. CMS oversees non-Federal governmental plans and health insurance issuers, and the regulation provides a safe harbor such that non-Federal governmental plans (and issuers offering coverage in connection with such plans) are deemed to comply with requirements of paragraph (d)(2) of 45 CFR 146.136 if they provide the reason for claims denial in a form and manner consistent with ERISA requirements found in 29 CFR 2560.503–1. Section 146.136(d)(3) of the final rule clarifies that PHS Act section 2719 governing internal claims and appeals and external review as implemented by 45 CFR 147.136, covers MHPAEA claims denials and requires that, when a non-quantitative treatment limitation (NQTL) is the basis for a claims denial, that a non-grandfathered plan or issuer must provide the processes, strategies, evidentiary standard, and other factors used in developing and applying the NQTL with respect to med/surg benefits and MH/SUD benefits.
Group health plan participants, beneficiaries, covered individuals in the individual market, or persons acting on their behalf, may use this optional model form to request information from plans regarding NQTLs that may affect patients' MH/SUD benefits or that may have resulted in their coverage being denied.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act—Compliance Policy.” This draft guidance describes FDA's intention with regard to enforcement of requirements related to product identifiers under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). Specifically, this guidance addresses manufacturers' product identifier and verification requirements, which begin November 27, 2017. This guidance also addresses certain requirements for repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers to only engage in transactions involving products with product identifiers and to verify the product identifier when investigating suspect product, in addition to repackager and wholesale distributor requirements related to saleable returned products.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 1, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002; or to the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Connie Jung, Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–3130,
The DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113–54) was signed into law on November 27, 2013. Section 202 of the DSCSA added section 582 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee–1). This section established product tracing, product identifier, and verification requirements for manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers to facilitate the tracing of products through the pharmaceutical distribution supply chain. Failure to comply with the requirements of section 582 is also a prohibited act under section 301(t) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(t)).
Beginning November 27, 2017, manufacturers are required, under section 582(b)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, to “affix or imprint a product identifier to each package and homogenous case of a product intended to be introduced in a transaction into commerce.” Also beginning on November 27, 2017, section 582(b)(4)(A)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act requires manufacturers to verify the product at the package level, including the standardized numerical identifier, which is part of the product identifier, when they determine that the product in their possession or control is suspect or they receive a verification request from FDA. Section 582(b)(4)(C) of the FD&C Act requires a manufacturer, upon receiving a request from an authorized trading partner that believes a product in its possession or control was manufactured by the manufacturer, to verify whether the product identifier on a product corresponds with the product identifier affixed or imprinted by the manufacturer. Section 582(b)(4)(E) of the FD&C Act requires manufacturers to verify the product identifier of a package or a sealed homogenous case of a saleable returned product before the manufacturer further distributes such product.
In addition, under section 582(e)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act, beginning on November 27, 2018, repackagers may engage in transactions involving a product only if such product is encoded with a product identifier, unless the product is grandfathered under section 582(a)(5) of the FD&C Act. This same requirement applies to wholesale distributors beginning on November 27, 2019, under section 582(c)(2) of the FD&C Act, and to dispensers beginning on November 27, 2020, under section 582(d)(2) of the FD&C Act. Additionally, under section 582(c)(4)(A)(i)(II), (d)(4)(A)(ii)(II), and (e)(4)(A)(i)(II) of the FD&C Act, wholesale distributors, dispensers, and repackagers are required to verify the product at the package level, including the standardized numerical identifier, which is part of the product identifier, to investigate a suspect product. For a saleable returned product, the wholesale distributor or repackager must verify the product identifier, including the standardized numerical identifier, of each package or sealed homogenous case of such product before it further distributes such product, under section 582(c)(4)(D) and (e)(4)(E) of the FD&C Act, respectively.
As described in the draft guidance, FDA has received comments and feedback from manufacturers and other trading partners expressing concern with industry-wide readiness for implementation of the product identifier requirements for manufacturers and describing challenges they face. Given the concerns expressed, FDA recognizes that some manufacturers may need additional time beyond November 27, 2017, to ensure that products are properly labeled with a product identifier. To minimize possible disruptions in the distribution of prescription drugs in the United States, FDA has adopted the compliance policy described in the guidance.
Under this compliance policy, FDA does not intend to take action against manufacturers who do not affix or imprint a product identifier to their packages and homogenous cases of product that are intended to be introduced in a transaction into commerce between November 27, 2017, and November 26, 2018. For such product that does not contain a product identifier and was first introduced in a transaction into commerce by the manufacturer between November 27, 2017, and November 26, 2018, FDA also does not intend to take action against manufacturers who do not use the product identifier to verify a product at the package level when investigating suspect product, upon receiving a verification request from FDA, after receiving a request from an authorized trading partner, or for a saleable returned product.
This guidance also explains that, for a product that does not have a product identifier and that was first introduced
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Product Identifier Requirements Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act—Compliance Policy.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 2, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202–395–7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301–796–8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 705(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 375(b)) gives FDA authority to disseminate information concerning suspected or imminent danger to public health by any regulated product. Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300u(a)(4)) also authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health information.
FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) carries out FDA's regulatory responsibilities regarding medical devices and radiological products. CDRH must be able to effectively communicate risk to health care practitioners, patients, caregivers, and consumers when there is a real or suspected threat to the public's health. CDRH uses safety communications to transmit information concerning these risks to user communities. Safety communications are released and available to organizations such as hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, home health care agencies, manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and other health care providers, as well as patients, caregivers, consumers, and patient advocacy groups. Through a process for identifying and addressing postmarket safety issues related to regulated products, CDRH determines when to release safety communications.
FDA seeks to evaluate the clarity, timeliness, and impact of safety communications by surveying a sample of recipients and obtain their voluntary responses to determine the impact of safety communications on the knowledge of the recipients. Understanding how the target audiences view these publications will aid in determining what, if any, changes should be considered in their content, format, and method of dissemination. The collection of this data is an important step in determining how well CDRH is communicating risk. The results from this survey will emphasize the quality of the safety communications and customer satisfaction. This will enable us to better serve the public by improving the effectiveness of safety communications.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on the history of the Safety Communication program, it is estimated that an average of three collections will be conducted per year. The total burden of voluntary response time is estimated at 10 minutes per survey. This was derived by CDRH staff completing the survey.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; renewal of advisory committee.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the renewal of the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until May 18, 2019.
Authority for the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee will expire on May 18, 2017, unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Jennifer Shepherd, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9001, email:
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102–3.65 and approval by the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11 and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the renewal of the Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee established to provide advice to the Commissioner. The Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility.
The Committee reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and contrast media used in diagnostic radiology and makes appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
The Committee shall consist of a core of 12 voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the fields of nuclear medicine, radiology, epidemiology or statistics, and related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting members, the Committee may include one non-voting member who is identified with industry interests.
Further information regarding the most recent charter and other information can be found at
This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory committees, please visit us at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 1, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 1, 2017. The
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 Dockets Management Staff, 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.”
•
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301–796–7726,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under section 1003(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), we are authorized to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and public information programs relating to the safety of the nation's food supply. The Food Safety Survey measures consumers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about food safety. Previous versions of the survey were collected in 1988, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2016. Food Safety Survey data are used to measure trends in consumer food safety habits including hand and cutting board washing, cooking practices, and use of food thermometers. Data are also used to evaluate educational messages and to inform policymakers about consumer attitudes about technologies such as food irradiation and biotechnology.
The proposed Food Safety Survey will contain many of the same questions and topics as previous Food Safety Surveys to facilitate measuring trends in food safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors over time. The proposed survey will also be updated to explore emerging consumer food safety topics and expand understanding of previously asked topics.
The methods for the proposed Food Safety Survey will be largely the same as those used with the previous Food
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA's burden estimate is based on the Agency's prior experience with the Food Safety Survey. FDA estimates that the burden hours for this information collection will remain the same since the last OMB approval.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Agency has filed with the Library of Congress the annual reports of those FDA advisory committees that held closed meetings during fiscal year 2016.
Copies are available at the Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240–402–7500. You also may access the docket at
Michael Ortwerth, Director and Committee Management Officer, Advisory Committee and Oversight Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–8220.
Under section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.) and 21 CFR 14.60(d), FDA has filed with the Library of Congress the annual reports for the following FDA advisory committees that held closed meetings during the period October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016:
Joint Meetings of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee
Annual Reports are available for public inspection between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at:
(1) The Library of Congress, Madison Building, Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Rm. 133, Washington, DC; and
(2) Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee. The general function of the committees is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The meeting will be held on July 26, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA–2017–N–1062. The docket will close on July 25, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting July 25, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2017. The
Comments received on or before July 12, 2017, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency. 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 Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Stephanie L. Begansky, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002, 301–796–9001, FAX: 301–847–8533, email:
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Stephanie L. Begansky at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, (301) 796–7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the Internet at
Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) will hold a meeting that will be open to the public. Information about SACHRP and the full meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at:
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m.
Fishers Lane Conference Center, Terrace Level, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Julia Gorey, J.D., Executive Director, SACHRP, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, Maryland 20852; telephone: 240–453–8141; fax: 240–453–6909; email address:
Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Assistant Secretary for Health, on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.
The Subpart A Subcommittee (SAS) was established by SACHRP in October 2006 and is charged with developing recommendations for consideration by SACHRP regarding the application of subpart A of 45 CFR part 46 in the current research environment.
The Subcommittee on Harmonization (SOH) was established by SACHRP at its July 2009 meeting and charged with identifying and prioritizing areas in which regulations and/or guidelines for human subjects research adopted by various agencies or offices within HHS would benefit from harmonization, consistency, clarity, simplification and/or coordination.
The SACHRP meeting will open to the public at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, followed by opening remarks from Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research Protections and Dr. Stephen Rosenfeld, SACHRP Chair. (
The SOH will present their recommendations regarding the new Common Rule's compliance dates and transition provisions, as well as for the interpretation and implementation of the broad consent provision, followed by the SAS discussing their report on the interpretation of the new exemption involving benign behavioral interventions. The Tuesday, July 25, meeting will adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.
The Wednesday, July 26, meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. with discussion of recommendations from the SAS regarding the new Common Rule's expedited review requirements.
The meeting will adjourn at approximately 2:30 p.m., July 26, 2017. Time for public comment sessions will be allotted both days. On-site registration is required for participation in the live public comment session. Note that public comment must be relevant to issues currently being addressed by the SACHRP. Individuals submitting written statements as public comment should email or fax their comments to SACHRP at
Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify one of the designated SACHRP points of contact at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a public stakeholder listening session on Strategies for Improving Parity for Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Coverage. The public meeting, mandated in the 21st Century Cures Act, seeks public comment on improved Federal and State coordination related to section 2726 of the Public Health Service Act, section 712 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 9812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and any comparable provisions of State law. The public meeting will seek participation from the required stakeholders in statute, State health commissioners, State agencies, State attorneys general, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, health insurance issuers, providers of mental health and
The meeting will be held on July 27, 2017 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held in the first floor auditorium in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
Laurel Fuller (202) 690–5949,
114–255 Pub. L. 114–255.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, July 12, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to July 12, 2017, 3:00 p.m., National Cancer Institute Shady Grove, Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 7W114, Rockville, MD 20850 which was published in the
The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting title to “Biospecimen and Innovative Technology”. The meeting is closed to the public.
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is charged with the Access to Recovery (ATR) program which will allow grantees (States, Territories, the District of Columbia and Tribal Organizations) a means to implement voucher programs for substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support services. The ATR data collection (OMB No. 0930–0266) will be a reinstatement from the previous approval that expired on May 31, 2017. There are no changes to the two client-level tools from the previous approval.
The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is charged with the Access to Recovery (ATR) program which will allow grantees (States, Territories, the District of Columbia and Tribal Organizations) a means to implement voucher programs for substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support services. This data collection is in use without OMB approval. There are no changes to the two client-level tools (OMB No. 0930–0266) from the previous approval. This data collection expired on May 31, 2017.
The goals of the ATR program are to: (1) Provide client choice among substance abuse clinical treatment and recovery support service providers, (2) expand access to a comprehensive array of clinical treatment and recovery support options (including faith-based programmatic options), and (3) increase substance abuse treatment capacity. Monitoring outcomes, tracking costs, and preventing waste, fraud and abuse to ensure accountability and effectiveness in the use of Federal funds are also important elements of the ATR program. Grantees, as a contingency of their award, are responsible for collecting Voucher Information (VI) and Voucher Transaction (VT) data from their clients.
The primary purpose of this data collection activity is to meet the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) by allowing SAMHSA to quantify the effects and accomplishments of SAMHSA programs. The following table is an estimated annual response burden for this effort.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 2, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines).
A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the Internet at
Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240–276–2600 (voice).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Pub. L. 100–71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Committee management; notice of federal advisory committee meeting.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 and Wednesday, July 26, 2017 in Reston, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.
The TMAC will meet on Tuesday, July 25, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Wednesday, July 26, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.
The meeting will be held at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Headquarters at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to
To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the
•
•
•
A public comment period will be held on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EDT and again on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 30 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Friday, July 21, 2017.
Mark Crowell, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646–3432, and email
Notice of this meeting is given under the
In accordance with the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472–3100, or email address
This information collection previously published in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Arkansas (FEMA–4318–DR), dated June 15, 2017, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 15, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Arkansas resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of April 26 to May 19, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jerry S. Thomas, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Arkansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Benton, Boone, Carroll, Clay, Faulkner, Fulton, Jackson, Lawrence, Pulaski, Randolph, Saline, Washington, and Yell Counties for Individual Assistance.
Baxter, Benton, Boone, Carroll, Clay, Cleburne, Conway, Craighead, Cross, Faulkner, Independence, Izard, Jackson, Lawrence, Madison, Marion, Mississippi, Montgomery, Newton, Ouachita, Perry, Poinsett, Prairie, Randolph, Saline, Washington, White, and Woodruff Counties for Public Assistance.
All areas within the State of Arkansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Idaho (FEMA–4313–DR), dated May 18, 2017, and related determinations.
Effective Date: June 22, 2017.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Idaho is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 18, 2017.
Benewah County for Public Assistance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Kansas (FEMA–4319–DR), dated June 16, 2017, and related determinations.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated June 16, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Kansas resulting from a severe winter storm, snowstorm, straight-line winds, and flooding during the period of April 28 to May 3, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. You are further authorized to provide snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for a limited period of time during or proximate to the incident period. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David G. Samaniego, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Kansas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Cherokee, Cheyenne, Crawford, Decatur, Finney, Gove, Graham, Grant, Greeley, Hamilton, Haskell, Kearny, Lane, Logan, Morton, Neosho, Norton, Rawlins, Scott, Seward, Sheridan, Sherman, Stanton, Stevens, Thomas, Wallace, and Wichita Counties for Public Assistance.
Greeley, Hamilton, Lane, Logan, Morton, Scott, Thomas, and Wallace Counties for snow assistance under the Public Assistance program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the incident period.
All areas within the State of Kansas are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This information collection is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2018. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by September 1, 2017.
Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer at
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 703–712) implements the four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Act authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking, etc., of migratory birds subject to the provisions of and in order to carry out the purposes of the four treaties. Section VII of the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Treaty authorizes the taking of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests.
The number of light geese (lesser snow, greater snow, and Ross' geese) in the midcontinent region has nearly quadrupled during the past several decades, due to a decline in adult mortality and an increase in winter survival. We refer to these species and subspecies as light geese because of their light coloration, as opposed to dark geese, such as white-fronted or Canada geese. Because of their feeding activity, light geese have become seriously injurious to their habitat, as well as to habitat important to other migratory birds. This poses a serious threat to the short- and long-term health and status of some migratory bird populations. We believe that the number of light geese in the midcontinent region has exceeded long-term sustainable levels for their arctic and subarctic breeding habitats, and that the populations must be reduced. Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 21 provides authority for the management of overabundant light geese.
Regulations at 50 CFR 21.60 authorize States and tribes in the midcontinent and Atlantic flyway regions to control light geese within the United States through the use of alternative regulatory strategies. The conservation order authorizes States and tribes to implement population control measures without having to obtain a Federal permit, thus significantly reducing their administrative burden. The conservation order is a streamlined process that affords an efficient and effective population reduction strategy, rather than addressing the issue through our permitting process. Furthermore, this strategy precludes the use of more drastic and costly direct population-reduction measures such as trapping and culling geese. States and tribes participating in the conservation order must:
• Designate participants and inform them of the requirements and conditions of the conservation order. Individual States and tribes determine the method to designate participants and how they will collect information from participants.
• Keep records of activities carried out under the authority of the conservation order, including:
(1) Number of persons participating in the conservation order;
(2) Number of days people participated in the conservation order;
(3) Number of light geese shot and retrieved under the conservation order; and
(4) Number of light geese shot, but not retrieved.
• Submit an annual report summarizing the activities conducted under the conservation order on or before September 15 of each year. Tribal information can be incorporated in State reports to reduce the number of reports submitted.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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 authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–712) and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This information collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by September 1, 2017.
Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703
This information collection is associated with our regulations that implement the MBTA. In 2003, the Service issued regulations at 50 CFR 21.43 establishing a depredation order that authorize the take of blackbirds, cowbirds, crows, grackles, and magpies under certain circumstances. These regulations impose reporting and recordkeeping requirements. In this regulation is a depredation order that authorizes take of blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies “when found committing or about to commit depredations upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health hazard or other nuisance.”
All persons or entities acting under this depredation order must provide an annual report containing the following information for each species:
• Number of birds taken,
• Months and years in which the birds were taken,
• State(s) and county(ies) in which the birds were taken, and
• General purpose for which the birds were taken (such as for protection of agriculture, human health and safety, property, or natural resources).
We collect this information so that we will be able to determine how many birds of each species are taken each year and whether the control actions are likely to affect the populations of those species.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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 authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2018. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by September 1, 2017.
Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, provides natural resource and other professional training for Service employees, employees of other Federal agencies, and other affiliations, including State agencies, private individuals, not-for-profit organizations, and university personnel. FWS Form 3–2193 (Training Application) is a quick and easy method for prospective students who are not from the Department of the Interior to request training. We encourage applicants to use FWS Form 3–2193 and to submit their requests electronically. However, we do not require applicants to complete both a training form required by their agency and FWS Form 3–2193. NCTC will accept any single training request as long as each submission identifies the name, address, and phone number of the applicant, sponsoring agency, class name, start date, and all required financial payment information.
NCTC uses data from the form to generate class rosters, class transcripts, and statistics, and as a budgeting tool for projecting training requirements. It is also used to track attendance, mandatory requirements, tuition, and invoicing for all NCTC-sponsored courses both onsite and offsite.
We invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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 authorities for this action are the Government Employees Training Act (5 U.S.C. 4101
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Request for information and comments.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is soliciting information and requesting comments on the preparation of a new five-year National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019–2024 pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act. Upon completion, the National OCS Program for 2019–2024 will replace the National OCS Program for 2017–2022 (2017–2022 Program), which was approved on January 17, 2017, and will succeed the National OCS Program for 2012–2017 on July 1, 2017.
BOEM must receive all comments and information by August 17, 2017.
Submit comments and information via the Federal internet commenting system at
Ms. Kelly Hammerle, National Program Manager, at (703) 787–1613 or by email at [add email address].
The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1331
Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prepare and periodically revise and maintain an oil and gas leasing program to implement the Act's policies. The program must contain a schedule of proposed lease sales (including as precisely as possible, the size, timing, and location of leasing activity) which the Secretary determines “will best meet national energy needs for the five year period following its approval. . . .” Section 18 also requires the completion of a multi-step process of public consultation and analysis before the Secretary may approve a new National OCS Program. The process includes the following steps: (1) Issuance of a Request for Information and Comments (RFI); (2) development of a Draft Proposed Program (DPP), (3) development of a Proposed Program, (4) development of a Proposed Final Program (PFP); and (5) Secretarial approval of the Program. Following this RFI, the public will have additional opportunities to comment on both the DPP and the Proposed Program documents.
This RFI requests comments on all 26 OCS Planning Areas, including the areas that are restricted from leasing by Presidential withdrawal or Congressional moratorium, as discussed below. BOEM requests information and comments from States, local and tribal governments, Native American and Native Alaskan organizations, Federal agencies, environmental and other public interest organizations, the oil and gas industry, non-energy industries, other interested organizations and entities, and the general public, for use in the preparation of the 2019–2024 National OCS Program. BOEM is seeking a wide array of information, including, but not limited to, information associated with the economic, social, and environmental values of all OCS resources, as well as the potential impact of oil and gas exploration and development on other OCS resources, and on the marine, coastal and human environments.
The National OCS Program sets forth the proposed schedule of lease sales for the subsequent five-year period, and enables the Federal Government, States, industry, and other interested parties to begin planning for the later steps in the leasing process. The Secretary decides whether to proceed with each specific lease sale on the schedule included in an approved National OCS Program only after meeting all the requirements of the OCS Lands Act and other applicable statutes.
The initiation of a new National OCS Program development process at this time is a key aspect of the implementation of President Donald J. Trump's America-First Offshore Energy Strategy, as outlined in Executive Order (E.O.) 13795 of April 28, 2017 (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), and Secretary's Order 3350 of May 1, 2017, issued by Secretary of the Interior Ryan K. Zinke. Section 2 of E.O. 13795 states that it is United States policy to encourage energy exploration and production, including on the OCS, to maintain the Nation's global energy leadership and “foster energy security and resilience for the benefit of the American people, while ensuring that any such activity is safe and environmentally responsible.” Secretary's Order 3350 calls for enhancing opportunities for energy exploration, leasing, and development of the OCS, establishing regulatory certainty for OCS activities, and enhancing conservation stewardship, thereby providing jobs, energy security, and revenue for the American people. As required by E.O. 13795, DOI will cooperate as appropriate and consistent with applicable law with the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Commerce on a number of issues, including issues pertaining to this National OCS Program development process.
The OCS is a significant source of oil and gas to the Nation's energy supply. As of May 2017, BOEM administered over 3,000 active oil and gas leases covering 16 million OCS acres. Production from these leases generates billions of dollars in revenue for the Federal Treasury and State governments, while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. In fiscal year 2016, oil and gas leases on the OCS accounted for approximately 18 percent of domestic oil production and 4 percent of domestic natural gas production. The offshore areas of the United States also are estimated to contain significant quantities of resources in yet-to-be-discovered fields. In its 2016 National Assessment (
In March 2017, BOEM held the last of 12 lease sales in the GOM scheduled in the 2012–2017 Program. That Program included annual sales in the Central and Western GOM and two sales in the portion of the Eastern GOM not subject to the Congressional moratorium pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA). These sales have generated approximately $3.4 billion in high bids.
Lease Sale 248 in the Western GOM was held on August 24, 2016. Pursuant to this sale, BOEM awarded 24 leases to the 3 companies that submitted bids, totaling over $18 million in high bids. Lease Sale 247 in the Central GOM was held on March 22, 2017. The sale generated almost $275 million in high bids for 163 blocks by 28 companies. Lease Sale 226, held on March 23, 2016, offered for lease all available unleased acreage in the Eastern GOM, except for those whole and partial OCS blocks deferred by the GOMESA. No bids were received for Sale 226.
BOEM is also moving forward in the prelease sale process for the early sales scheduled in the recently approved 2017–2022 Program, which is effective July 1, 2017, and includes ten region-wide lease sales in the area of the GOM not under Congressional moratorium or otherwise unavailable for leasing. For more information on the lease sale schedule, visit:
The last sale in the 2012–2017 Program is scheduled for June 21, 2017, in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet Planning Area offshore Alaska. The 2017–2022 Program also schedules a sale in the northern portion of the Cook Inlet Planning Area in 2021. Prelease sale steps will begin in the next year.
The Arctic holds substantial oil and gas potential. In 2016, BOEM estimated Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources (UTRR) in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area to be 29 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE) and in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area to be 13 BBOE. The 2016 National Assessment for all OCS areas is available at
Data suggests that portions of the Atlantic OCS may contain significant oil and gas resource potential (see 2016 National Assessment cited above); however, current geological and geophysical (G&G) information regarding that potential is based on data collected in the 1970s and early 1980s. Tremendous advances in instrumentation and technology for the acquisition and analysis of G&G data have been made in the intervening decades.
In recognition of these advances in G&G data acquisition technology and the need to better understand the scope of existing resources, BOEM published, on July 23, 2014 (79 FR 42815), a Record of Decision for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Atlantic G&G activities, which established a path forward for G&G activities off the Mid- and South Atlantic coast. BOEM is currently evaluating several G&G permit applications. With the initiation of a new Program development process and, with it, the renewed potential for a lease sale in the Atlantic region, BOEM may receive new G&G permit applications in the near future. The last lease sale held in the Atlantic OCS was in 1983.
The four planning areas off the Pacific coast were not included for potential leasing in the 2017–2022 Program. Eleven OCS oil and gas lease sales were held in the Pacific Region between 1963 and 1984. A total of 470 leases were issued in the 11 sales. Today, there are 43 producing leases and 23 oil and gas platforms, all offshore southern California. In Fiscal Year 2016, production from these leases generated $31.2 million in revenue to the federal treasury from a total of $234 million in sales value from crude oil and natural gas. As a result of Congressional moratoria, subsequent presidential action, and consistent and united opposition by the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to any activity off their coasts, the Pacific OCS has not been included in any National OCS Program since the 1987–1992 Program.
With the enactment of GOMESA, Congress placed off-limits to OCS oil and gas leasing activities, through June
The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area in Alaska was withdrawn from future leasing consideration for a time period without specific expiration by President Barack Obama on December 16, 2014, pursuant to section 12(a) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a).
All National Marine Sanctuaries were withdrawn from leasing, for a time period without a specific expiration, by President William J. Clinton on June 12, 1998. Pursuant to E.O. 13795, President Trump withdrew marine sanctuaries that were designated as of July 14, 2008, from disposition by leasing. On September 15, 2016, President Obama designated the first marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England as the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, prohibiting exploring for, developing, or producing oil and gas or minerals, or undertaking any other energy exploration or development activities within the monument.
In the DPP, BOEM will analyze all 26 OCS Planning Areas, including areas that may be currently unavailable for leasing. An area that is currently unavailable for leasing could still be part of a National OCS Program, but could not be offered for sale until Congress and/or the President, as applicable, makes it available.
Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires that the Secretary consider national energy needs in formulating the National OCS Program. In developing the National OCS Program, BOEM will present an analysis of the contribution of OCS oil and natural gas to the U.S. economy and the Nation's anticipated energy needs. The analysis will include discussions of the U.S. Energy Information Administration's projections of national energy needs in the Annual Energy Outlook, the potential contribution of OCS oil and natural gas production in meeting those needs, alternative sources to OCS production, and considerations relating to national and regional energy markets. BOEM invites comments from anyone who would like to submit information related to the Nation's future energy needs or national and regional energy markets for consideration in determining the appropriate size, timing, and location of OCS oil and gas lease sales for the new National OCS Program.
Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires that the National OCS Program be based upon a consideration of a comparative analysis of the oil- and gas-bearing regions of the OCS. BOEM has divided the OCS into 26 Planning Areas, which are depicted in Figures 1 and 2. The depicted maritime boundaries and limits, as well as divisions between planning areas, where shown, are for planning and administrative purposes only. Note that precise maritime boundaries between the United States and nearby or adjacent nations have not been determined in all cases. These depictions do not affect or prejudice in any manner the position of the United States, or its individual States, with respect to the nature or extent of internal waters or of sovereign rights or jurisdiction.
This RFI requests information on all 26 planning areas, including areas currently under moratorium, withdrawn, or otherwise unavailable. As set forth in more detail later in this RFI, the information requested is wide-ranging, including information on other uses of the sea, marine productivity, and environmental sensitivity. Accordingly, this RFI invites and provides an opportunity for Governors of affected States, local government, industry, Federal agencies, and the general public to provide suggestions and any other information they believe BOEM should evaluate for purposes of the 2019–2024 Program.
The information solicited in this RFI will be considered in light of the factors specified by section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, which are discussed later herein. Based upon consideration of the analysis of those factors, the Secretary will prepare the DPP and decide which areas to include therein. Pursuant to section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, areas included in the DPP decision will be subject to further analysis.
As previously noted, the National OCS Program preparation process will follow all the procedural and substantive requirements of section 18 of the OCS Lands Act. This RFI solicits information and comments early in the preparation process pursuant to section 18(c)(1) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(c)(1). BOEM will prepare a DPP decision document based upon consideration of the information and comments received and analysis of the principles and factors specified in section 18 of the OCS Lands Act. The DPP decision document will present for review and comment a preliminary schedule of proposed lease sales and potential decision options.
Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act provides that, for purposes of preparing a National OCS Program, the Secretary should take into consideration the economic, social, and environmental values of all OCS resources, as well as the potential impact of oil and gas exploration and development on other resource values of the OCS and the marine, coastal and human environments. The eight factors that must be considered in determining the timing and location of leasing under the National OCS Program are set forth in section 18(a)(2) of the OCS Lands act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(a)(2). They are (1) existing information on the geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of OCS regions; (2) equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various regions; (3) the location of such regions with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets; (4) the location of such regions with respect to other uses of the sea and seabed, including fisheries, navigation, existing or proposed sea lanes, potential sites of deepwater ports, and other anticipated uses of the resources and space of the OCS; (5) expressed industry interest in the development of oil and gas resources; (6) laws, goals, and policies of affected States specifically identified by governors; (7) the relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of different areas of the OCS; and (8) environmental and predictive information for different areas of the OCS.
Section 18(a)(3) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(a)(3), requires the Secretary to obtain a proper balance among the potential for environmental damage, the potential for discovery of oil and gas, and the potential for adverse impact on the coastal zone, for which the DOI will provide a cost-benefit analysis, as appropriate, to supplement qualitative consideration of these factors. The OCS Lands Act also requires that leasing activities assure the receipt of fair market value for the lands leased and rights conveyed by the Federal Government in the OCS. Section 18(a)(4) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(a)(4).
BOEM invites comments from anyone who would like to submit information and/or suggestions for consideration in determining, among others things, the appropriate size, timing, and location of
This request constitutes a general solicitation of comments and does not seek information about commenters, other than that necessary for self-identification. Therefore it is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. (Please refer to implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4).)
BOEM would like to receive comments and suggestions of national or regional application that would be useful in formulating the National OCS Program. The types of information that would be most useful in conducting the analysis, pursuant to section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, relate to the following factors:
(1) National energy needs for the period relevant to the new National OCS Program (
(2) existing information concerning geographical, geological, and ecological characteristics of the OCS planning areas and near shore and coastal environments;
(3) equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks among the various planning areas;
(4) location of planning areas with respect to, and the relative needs of, regional and national energy markets;
(5) other uses of the sea and seabed, including commercial and recreational fisheries; navigation; military activities; existing or proposed sea lanes; potential sites of deepwater ports (including liquefied natural gas facilities); subsea cables; satellite launch activities; potential offshore wind, wave, current, or other alternative energy sites; and other anticipated uses of OCS resources and locations;
(6) relative environmental sensitivity and marine productivity of the different planning areas and/or a specific section(s) of a given OCS planning area;
(7) environmental and predictive information pertaining to offshore and coastal areas potentially affected by OCS oil and gas development including, but not limited to, socio-cultural and archaeological information; and
(8) methods and procedures for assuring the receipt of fair market value for lands leased.
In developing the methods and procedures for assuring the receipt of fair market value for lands leased under section 18(a)(4) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(a)(4), BOEM sets lease fiscal and temporal terms, and other features relevant to bidding. Given BOEM's responsibility to ensure fair market value for the U.S. Government, BOEM is seeking information in response to the following questions:
(1) If DOI continues leasing in the Gulf of Mexico planning areas, are there changes to lease terms that would better meet the objectives of the OCS Lands Act? Lease terms subject to change include:
a. Minimum bids
b. Rental rates
c. Royalty rates, royalty structures (
d. Initial period (also known as primary term) of the lease term and extended initial period (such as, 7 years plus 3 years more if drilling commences)
(2) If DOI offers acreage for lease in planning areas outside the Gulf of Mexico, what fiscal terms for each planning area would best meet the objectives and limitations of the OCS Lands Act regarding the lease terms listed in items 1a. to 1d. above?
a. Is there an alternative design (
b. Should the upcoming program consider use of alternative and/or non-traditional fiscal terms, primary lease terms, auction formats, or tract offering sizes? Please state which of these features of the leasing process merit consideration for future use, where and under what conditions those changes might be useful, and explain why such a change would be necessary or beneficial,
Please note that BOEM is requesting information on these topics to inform its continuing evaluation of market conditions, available resources, bidding patterns (if applicable), and competitiveness of OCS lease terms with respect to each proposed sale. BOEM is asking for public input regarding lease terms or potential changes to lease terms concerning acreage offered during the 2019–2024 Program.
For Coastal States, pursuant to section 18(f)(5) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(f)(5), and implementing regulations at 30 CFR 556.202, BOEM requests information concerning the relationship between OCS oil and gas activity and the States' coastal zone management programs that are being developed, or are administered, under section 305 or 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1454, 1455. BOEM also requests that non-coastal and Coastal States submit information concerning environmental risk and potential for damage to coastal and marine resources associated with OCS development, information related to other uses of the sea, and any information that is relevant to equitable sharing of developmental benefits and environmental risks associated with OCS oil and gas activity (or the likely energy substitutes in the absence of new OCS leasing). In addition, for non-coastal and Coastal States, information is requested on the impacts of additional OCS leasing, exploration and production and the associated economic impact on the State and national economies and citizens, including impacts to employment, existing and new industries, future export potential, and state taxes.
Pursuant to section 18(a)(2)(E) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(a)(2)(E), BOEM will take into account, during the preparation of the National OCS Program, the interest of oil and gas producers in the development of oil and gas resources, as indicated by exploration or nomination. Industry respondents should base this information upon their expectations as of 2017. For each planning area in which industry respondents are interested, they should submit information concerning unleased hydrocarbon potential, future oil and gas price expectations, and other relevant information that the industry respondent uses in making OCS oil and gas leasing decisions. BOEM requests that industry respondents provide
(1) Indicate the OCS Planning Area(s) where the industry respondent would be interested in acquiring oil and gas leases, regardless of whether the area currently is unavailable. If more than one Planning Area is of interest, rank all areas of interest (including those now being offered, if appropriate) in order of preference.
(2) Indicate the number and timing of lease sales in the period 2019–2024 that would be appropriate for each Planning Area. If only one lease sale in a Planning Area is appropriate, indicate whether that area should be considered for leasing early or late in the five-year schedule. If more than one lease sale in a planning area is suggested, indicate the preferred interval between lease sales.
(3) Indicate the expected lead time to production in areas that are not part of the 2017–2022 Program or currently do not have infrastructure or production, relative to lead-times to new production in previously leased areas like the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico.
(4) In addition, BOEM requests information on industry's view of the utility of region-wide sales in the Gulf of Mexico as planned in the 2017–2022 National Program.
Section 18(g) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(g), authorizes confidential treatment of privileged or proprietary information. In order to ensure security and confidentiality of proprietary information to the maximum extent possible, BOEM requests that proprietary information only be sent by U.S. mail. In addition to prominently stating that proprietary information is contained in the comment at the beginning of the submission, comments should be sent in a plain outer envelope with an inner envelope stating that proprietary information is contained within.
Pursuant to section 18(f)(5) of the OCS Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1344(f)(5), and implementing regulations at 30 CFR 556.202, BOEM requests information concerning relationships between affected States' coastal zone management programs and OCS oil and gas activities. In coordination with this RFI, BOEM will also send a letter to the Secretary of Commerce soliciting such information.
Pursuant to BOEM's regulations at 30 CFR 556.202, BOEM requests information concerning regional and national energy markets, and transportation networks, including the role of exports. In coordination with this RFI, BOEM will also send a letter to the Secretary of Energy soliciting such information.
BOEM respects the needs of DOD in their mission of protecting the United States and continues to work closely with DOD to understand and identify potential measures to address any conflicts on the OCS. Multiple use challenges are a concern in many OCS areas, in particular the military's use of portions of the Mid- and South Atlantic Planning Areas. As in the past, BOEM requests that DOD provide textual and graphic information as to the areas where oil and gas operations could be carried out. BOEM and DOD are committed to working through multiple use challenges so that each of our important missions is accomplished. Such detailed cooperation already occurs in the GOM and offshore California. During preparation of the 2017–2022 Program, DOD identified 95 percent of the proposed Atlantic Program Area as largely compatible with oil and gas activities, as long as appropriate mitigation measures are applied.
BOEM will accept comments in one of two formats: The internet commenting system,
Internet comments should be submitted via the Federal internet commenting system at
(1) In the search tab on the main page, search for BOEM–2017–0050.
(2) Locate the document, then click the “Submit a Comment” link either on the Search Results page or the Document Details page. This will display the Web comment form.
(3) Enter the submitter information and type the comment on the Web form. Attach any additional files (up to 10MB). (BOEM cannot ensure the security or confidentiality of information sent via the internet; therefore, information that is proprietary should be provided by U.S. mail as provided in the
(4) After typing the comment, click the “Preview Comment” link to review. Once satisfied with the comment, click the “Submit” button to send the comment.
Information on using
Mail comments and information on the 2019–2024 Program to Ms. Kelly Hammerle, National Program Manager, BOEM, 45600 Woodland Road, Mailstop VAM–LD, Sterling, VA 20166.
BOEM will post all comments to
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of contractual actions that have been proposed to the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and are new, discontinued, or completed since the last publication of this notice. This notice is one of a variety of means used to inform the public about proposed contractual actions for capital recovery and management of project resources and facilities consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended and supplemented. Additional announcements of individual contract actions may be published in the
The identity of the approving officer and other information pertaining to a specific contract proposal may be obtained by calling or writing the appropriate regional office at the address and telephone number given for each region in the
Michelle Kelly, Reclamation Law Administration Division, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225–0007; telephone 303–445–2888.
Consistent with section 9(f) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended and supplemented, and the rules and regulations published in 52 FR 11954, April 13, 1987 (43 CFR 426.22), Reclamation will publish notice of proposed or amendatory contract actions for any contract for the delivery of project water for authorized uses in newspapers of general circulation in the affected area at least 60 days prior to contract execution. Announcements may be in the form of news releases, legal notices, official letters, memorandums, or other forms of written material. Meetings, workshops, and/or hearings may also be used, as appropriate, to provide local publicity. The public participation procedures do not apply to proposed contracts for the sale of surplus or interim irrigation water for a term of 1 year or less. Either of the contracting parties may invite the public to observe contract proceedings. All public participation procedures will be coordinated with those involved in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act. Pursuant to the “Final Revised Public Participation Procedures” for water resource-related contract negotiations, published in 47 FR 7763, February 22, 1982, a tabulation is provided of all proposed contractual actions in each of the five Reclamation regions. When contract negotiations are completed, and prior to execution, each proposed contract form must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or pursuant to delegated or redelegated authority, the Commissioner of Reclamation or one of the regional directors. In some instances, congressional review and approval of a report, water rate, or other terms and conditions of the contract may be involved.
Public participation in and receipt of comments on contract proposals will be facilitated by adherence to the following procedures:
1. Only persons authorized to act on behalf of the contracting entities may negotiate the terms and conditions of a specific contract proposal.
2. Advance notice of meetings or hearings will be furnished to those parties that have made a timely written request for such notice to the appropriate regional or project office of Reclamation.
3. Written correspondence regarding proposed contracts may be made available to the general public pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended.
4. Written comments on a proposed contract or contract action must be submitted to the appropriate regional officials at the locations and within the time limits set forth in the advance public notices.
5. All written comments received and testimony presented at any public hearings will be reviewed and summarized by the appropriate regional office for use by the contract approving authority.
6. Copies of specific proposed contracts may be obtained from the appropriate regional director or his or her designated public contact as they become available for review and comment.
7. In the event modifications are made in the form of a proposed contract, the appropriate regional director shall determine whether republication of the notice and/or extension of the comment period is necessary.
Factors considered in making such a determination shall include, but are not limited to, (i) the significance of the modification, and (ii) the degree of public interest which has been expressed over the course of the negotiations. At a minimum, the regional director will furnish revised contracts to all parties who requested the contract in response to the initial public notice.
17. Talent, Medford, and Rogue River Valley IDs; Rogue River Basin Project; OR: Contracts for repayment of reimbursable shares of SOD program modifications for Howard Prairie Dam.
14. Talent, Medford, and Rogue River Valley IDs; Rogue River Basin Project; Oregon: Contracts for repayment of reimbursable shares of SOD program modifications for Hyatt Dam. Contracts executed in March 2017.
46. Sacramento County Water Agency, CVP, California: Assignment of 7,000 acre-feet of CVP water to the City of Folsom. Contract executed on December 21, 2016.
20. Ak-Chin Indian Community and Del Webb Corporation, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the Ak-Chin Indian Community to lease 1,800 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Del Webb Corporation during calendar year 2017.
21. Gold Dome Mining Corporation and Wellton-Mohawk IDD, Gila Project, Arizona: Terminate contract No. 0–07–30–W0250 pursuant to Articles 11(d) and 11(e).
22. Estates of Anna R. Roy and Edward P. Roy, Gila Project, Arizona: Terminate contract No. 6–07–30–W0124 pursuant to Article 9(c).
3. Sherrill Ventures, LLLP and Green Acres Mohave, LLC; BCP; Arizona: Draft contracts for PPR No. 14 for 1,080 acre-feet of water per year as follows: Sherrill Ventures, LLLP, a draft contract for 954.3 acre-feet per year and Green Acres Mohave, LLC, a draft contract for 125.7 acre-feet per year.
6. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, and Otay WD; BCP; California: Execute amendment No. 2 to extend the “Agreement for Temporary Emergency Delivery of a Portion of the Mexican Treaty Waters of the Colorado River to the International Boundary in the Vicinity of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, and the Operation of Facilities in the United States” until November 9, 2019. Contract executed on January 19, 2017.
7. Central Arizona Water Conservation District, CAP, Arizona: Negotiate a wheeling agreement for the wheeling of nonproject water (CAP System Use Agreement), in accordance with the District's existing contract. Contract executed on February 2, 2017.
12. Imperial ID, Lower Colorado River Water Supply Project, California: Develop an agreement between Reclamation and Imperial ID for the funding of design, construction, and installation of power facilities for the Project. Contract executed on February 11, 2017.
13. San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, CAP, Arizona: Execute a CAP water lease in order for the San Carlos Apache Tribe to lease 2,230 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe during calendar year 2017. Contract executed on January 10, 2017.
17. Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and the Town of Gilbert, CAP, Arizona: Execute amendment No. 5 to a CAP water lease to extend the term of the lease in order for the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to lease 13,933 acre-feet of its CAP water to the Town of Gilbert during calendar year 2017. Contract executed on February 23, 2017.
41. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The District requires an amendment to its block notices for construction costs not currently under repayment.
42. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Weber Basin Project, Utah: The District requires a Contributed Funds Act agreement for reimbursable costs not currently under contract.
43. Collbran Water Conservancy District, Collbran Project, Colorado: Laramie Energy has requested an exchange contract for exchange of water on the Collbran Project.
44. Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Project, New Mexico: Water service agreement between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and BP America Production Company for delivery of 1,500 acre-feet of M&I water from the Jicarilla's settlement water from the Navajo Reservoir Supply for a 5-year term.
7. Carbon Water Conservancy District, Scofield Project, Utah: The District has requested Reclamation's assistance with O&M activities to rehabilitate certain portions of the Scofield Dam outlet works and surrounding area. Work was completed as part of Reclamation's extraordinary maintenance authorities and no further action is required.
30. Provo River Restoration Project, Utah: The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is amending agreement No. 9–LM–40–01410 to include additional acreage in the boundaries of the Provo River Restoration Project. Contract executed on January 23, 2017.
9. Uintah Water Conservancy District; Vernal Unit, CUP; Utah: The District desires to pipe the Steinaker Service Canal to improve public safety, decrease O&M costs, and increase water efficiency. This action will require a supplementary O&M contract to modify Federal Reclamation facilities, as well as an agreement written under the authority of the Civil Sundry Appropriations Act of 1921 for Reclamation to accept funds to review designs, inspect project construction, and any other activities requiring Reclamation's participation. Contract executed on June 27, 2016.
44. Jicarilla Apache Nation, Navajo Project, New Mexico: Water service agreement between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and BP America Production Company for delivery of 1,500 acre-feet of M&I water from the Jicarilla's settlement water from the Navajo Reservoir Supply for a 5-year term. Contract executed on November 3, 2016.
33. Town of Estes Park, Colorado-Big Thompson Project, Colorado: Consideration of a renewal of contract with the Town of Estes Park.
30. Hickory Swings Golf Course; Canyon Ferry Unit, P–SMBP; Montana: Consideration to amend contract No. 159E670039 to increase the water supply from 20 to 50 acre-feet.
10. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado: Consideration of an excess capacity master storage contract. Contract executed on December 23, 2016.
19. Mirage Flats ID, Mirage Flats Project, Nebraska: Consideration of a contract action for repayment of SOD costs. Contract executed December 13, 2016.
24. Bostwick Division, P–SMBP: Excess capacity contract with the State of Nebraska and/or State of Kansas entities and/or irrigation districts. Contract executed on December 13, 2016.
27. Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District, Norman Project, Oklahoma: Consideration of a contract for a supply of water made possible when infrequent and otherwise unmanageable flood flows of short duration create a temporary supply of water. Contract executed on February 14, 2017.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability and notice of public hearings.
The Bureau of Reclamation, as the National Environmental Policy Act Federal lead agency, and the Contra Costa Water District, as the California Environmental Quality Act State lead agency, have made available for public review and comment the Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIS/EIR). The Draft SEIS/EIR describes and presents the environmental effects of the No-Action Alternative and four action alternatives. Six public hearings will be held to receive comments from individuals and organizations on the Draft SEIS/EIR.
Submit written comments on the Draft SEIS/EIR on or before September 1, 2017.
Six public hearings have been scheduled to receive oral or written comments regarding environmental effects:
A 1-hour open house to view project information and interact with the project team will precede each public hearing.
Send written comments on the Draft SEIS/EIR to Ms. Lisa Rainger, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825, or
Electronic CD copies of the Draft SEIS/EIR may be requested from Ms. Marguerite Patil, Contra Costa Water District, at 925–688–8018, or
The public hearings will be held at the following locations:
Ms. Lisa Rainger, Bureau of Reclamation, at 916–978–5090 (TDD 916–978–5608), or
The Draft SEIS/EIR documents the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environment that may result from the expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
The Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion Project Draft SEIS/EIR evaluates expanding the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir and conveyance facilities. Los Vaqueros Reservoir was previously expanded to 160 thousand acre-feet (TAF), and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) are currently evaluating the second phase of expansion up to the 275 TAF capacity. The project objectives consist of: (1) Developing water supplies for environmental water management that supports fish protection, habitat management, and other environmental water needs; (2) increasing water supply reliability for water providers within the San Francisco Bay Area, to help meet municipal and industrial water demands during drought periods and emergencies or to address shortages due to regulatory and environmental restrictions; and (3) improving the quality of water deliveries to municipal and industrial customers in the San Francisco Bay Area, without impairing the project's ability to meet the environmental and water supply reliability objectives stated above.
One of the five potential surface storage projects described in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program's long-term plan is the expansion of the existing Los Vaqueros Reservoir, an existing 160,000 acre-foot off-stream surface storage facility, located in Contra Costa County, California. The existing facility is owned and operated by CCWD.
The primary study area includes the Los Vaqueros Reservoir watershed and associated dam and reservoir facilities, which are situated in the coastal foothills west of the Delta and east of the Bay Area, the central and south Delta, and service areas of Bay Area water agencies. The Bay Area water agencies and additional water agencies served by the Central Valley Project potentially affected include CCWD, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, Alameda County Water District, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, City of Brentwood, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Contra Costa Irrigation District, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Due to the project influence on other programs and projects, an extended study area is defined to include the service areas of the Central Valley of California and south-of-Delta wildlife refuges.
Reclamation was authorized in Public Law 108–7 (Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003) and re-affirmed in Public Law 108–361 (2004) to conduct a feasibility-level investigation of the potential expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Planning studies have focused on identifying water resources problems, needs, and opportunities in the primary study area; developing a set of planning objectives; and formulating alternatives.
If special assistance is required at the public hearings, please contact Ms. Lisa Rainger at 916–978–5090, or via email at
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on large power transformers from Korea would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective July 3, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2017.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) The
(6) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17–5–389, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted a review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective July 3, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2017.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17–5–390, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty order on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 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 determined that enforcement complainants Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, “ARM”) have not shown that respondents Eko Brands, LLC, and Espresso Supply, Inc., violated a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order (together, “remedial orders”). The Commission has also determined not to rescind the remedial orders. The consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding is hereby terminated.
Robert J. Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205–3438. 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 (
The Commission instituted the original investigation on September 9, 2014, based on a complaint filed by ARM. 79 FR 53445–46 (Sept. 9, 2014). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 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 beverage brewing capsules, components thereof, and products containing the same, by reason of infringement of claims 5–8 and 18–20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (“the '320 patent”).
On March 17, 2016, the Commission found no violation of section 337 by Solofill and DongGuan because claims 5–7, 18, and 20 of the '320 patent were invalid for a lack of written description and claims 5 and 6 were invalid as anticipated. 81 FR 15742–43 (Mar. 24, 2016). The Commission, however, presumed that the allegations in the complaint were true with respect to the defaulted parties Eko Brands and Evermuch, and thus concluded that they violated section 337 with respect to claims 8 and 19.
On June 1, 2016, ARM filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75(b) to investigate alleged violations of the March 17, 2016, remedial orders by Eko and its purchaser, Espresso Supply, Inc. (collectively, “Eko”). The Commission instituted a formal enforcement proceeding on July 1, 2016. 81 FR 43242–43.
On September 12, 2016, Eko file a second petition requesting the Commission to rescind its remedial orders, and to terminate the enforcement proceeding. On November 25, 2016, the Commission instituted a rescission proceeding, and consolidated
On January 31, 2017, Eko petitioned the Commission to rescind the remedial orders based on a lack of a domestic industry. The Commission denied the petition on June 8, 2017, because Eko failed to show changed circumstances with respect to the domestic industry. Notice of Commission Determination to Deny a Petition Requesting the Rescission of Remedial Orders (June 8, 2017).
On March 27, 2017, the presiding ALJ issued the subject enforcement initial determination (“EID”), which found that the remedial orders cannot be enforced due to a lack of domestic industry, and issued a recommended determination that the remedial orders be rescinded due to an intervening district court summary judgment of noninfringement. OUII petitioned for review of the EID on April 6, 2017, and ARM petitioned for review on April 7, 2017. On April 13, 2017, ARM and Eko filed a response to OUII's petition, and OUII filed a response to ARM's petition. On April 14, 2017, Eko filed a response to ARM's petition. On May 11, 2017, the Commission determined to review the EID.
The Commission has determined that ARM has not shown that Eko violated the remedial orders. The Commission reverses the EID's finding that the remedial orders cannot be enforced against Eko due to a lack of domestic industry, but finds that ARM has failed to show that Eko had the intent necessary to induce or contribute to the infringement of claims 8 and 19 of the '320 patent. The Commission has also determined not to rescind the remedial orders. This consolidated enforcement and rescission proceeding is hereby terminated, and a Commission opinion will issue shortly.
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order on certain lined paper school supplies from India and the antidumping duty orders on certain lined paper school supplies from China and India would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective July 3, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2017.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees, and Commission rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 79 FR 3246 (Jan. 17, 2014), 73 FR 24609 (May 5, 2008). Consequently, former employees are not required to seek Commission approval to appear in a review under Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation was pending when they were Commission employees. For further ethics advice on this matter, contact Charles Smith, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–3408.
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17–5–392, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel bar from Brazil, India, Japan, and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission.
Effective July 3, 2017. To be assured of consideration, the deadline for responses is August 2, 2017. Comments on the adequacy of responses may be filed with the Commission by September 14, 2017.
Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
(1)
(2) The
(3) The
(4) The
(5) An
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are advised that they may appear in a review even if they participated personally and substantially in the corresponding underlying original investigation or an earlier review of the same underlying investigation. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is not the same particular matter as the underlying original investigation, and a five-year review is not the same particular matter as an earlier review of the same underlying investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment
No response to this request for information is required if a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) number is not displayed; the OMB number is 3117 0016/USITC No. 17–5–391, expiration date June 30, 2020. Public reporting burden for the request is estimated to average 15 hours per response. Please send comments regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address) and name, telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is an interested party under 19 U.S.C. 1677(9) and if so, how, including whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in this proceeding by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the
(7) A list of 3–5 leading purchasers in the U.S. market for the
(8) A list of known sources of information on national or regional prices for the
(9) If you are a U.S. producer of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the
(d) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the
(e) the value of (i) net sales, (ii) cost of goods sold (COGS), (iii) gross profit, (iv) selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and (v) operating income of the
(10) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of
(11) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of
(b) Capacity (quantity) of your firm(s) to produce the
(c) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of
(12) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the
(13) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the
This proceeding is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731–TA–1378–1379 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially
Effective June 27, 2017.
Porscha Stiger(202–205–3241), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202–205–1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations 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 B (19 CFR part 207).
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the 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 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Judicial Conference of the United States.
Notice of Open Meeting.
The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure will hold a meeting on September 26, 2017. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:
The meeting will take place on September 26, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Mecham Conference Center, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, One Columbus Circle NE., Washington, DC 20544.
Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.
On June 26, 2017, a proposed Consent Decree was lodged with the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit against Rocky Mountain Bottle Company, LLC (“RMBC”) alleging violations of the Non-attainment New Source Review provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7501–7515, among other provisions. The Complaint contends that RMBC modified the furnaces at its facility in Jefferson County, Colorado, without installing required pollution controls. The proposed Consent Decree requires RMBC to pay a civil penalty of $475,000 and undertake significant injunctive relief.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Stipulation of Settlement and Order may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $17.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.
Notice.
On June 30, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Employment & Training Administration (ETA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Application for Alien Employment Certification,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Application for Alien Employment Certification information collection that helps the ETA to meet its statutory responsibilities for program administration, management, and oversight under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA). INA section 212(a)(5)(A)(iii) deals specifically with professional athletes coming to the U.S.A. on a permanent basis as immigrants, and Form ETA–750, part A is used to collect information that permits the DOL to meet Federal responsibilities for such entry. Form ETA–750, part B provides detailed information about an alien's education and work history and is used by the DOL to collect information about the professional athlete on whose behalf an application for permanent labor certification is filed. The Department of Homeland Security also uses part B for foreign workers applying for the National Interest Waiver of the job offer requirement under INA section 203(b)(2)(B)(i). INA sections 212, 214, and 218 authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice.
On June 30, 2017, the Department of Labor (DOL) will submit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) titled, “Ethylene Oxide Standard” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for continued use, without change, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before August 2, 2017.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the
Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL–OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202–395–5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email:
Michel Smyth by telephone at 202–693–4129, TTY 202–693–8064, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).
This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Ethylene Oxide Standard information collection requirements codified in regulations 29 CFR 1910.1047. The principal information collection requirements in the Standard include conducting worker exposure monitoring, notifying workers of the exposure, implementing a written compliance program, and implementing medical surveillance of workers. In addition, the examining physician must provide specific information to ensure that workers receive a copy of their medical examination results. The employer must maintain exposure-monitoring and medical records for specific periods and provide access to these records to OSHA and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health representatives, the affected workers and their authorized representatives, and other designated parties. Occupational Safety and Health Act sections 2(b)(9), 6, and 8(c) authorize this information collection.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Institute of Museum and Library Services, National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Submission for OMB Review, Comment request.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services announces the following information collection has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Robin Dale, Acting Deputy Director, Library Services, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20024–2135. Ms. Dale can be reached by Telephone: 202–653–4650, Fax: 202–653–4603, or by email at
The Institute of Museum and Library Services is the primary source of federal support for the Nation's 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums. The Institute's mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, learning, and civic engagement. The Institute works at the national level and in coordination with state and local organizations to sustain heritage, culture, and knowledge; enhance learning and innovation; and support professional development. IMLS is responsible for identifying national needs for and trends in museum, library, and information services; measuring and reporting on the impact and effectiveness of museum, library and information services throughout the United States, including programs conducted with funds made available by IMLS; identifying, and disseminating information on the best practices of such programs; and developing plans to improve museum, library, and information services of the United States and strengthen national, State, local, regional, and international communications and cooperative networks (20 U.S.C. 72, 20 U.S.C. 9108).
The purpose of this Notice is to solicit comments concerning the evaluation instrument for the Digital Inclusion Corps Pilot Project, a project under a cooperative agreement between IMLS and The PAST Foundation.
OMB is particularly interested in comments that help the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
National Mediation Board.
Notice.
The National Mediation Board (NMB) invites comments on its proposal to the information collection request as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 2, 2017.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Director, Office of Administration, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Currently, the NMB is soliciting comments concerning the Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
1. Abstract: When a dispute arises among a carrier's employees as to who will be their bargaining representative, the National Mediation Board (NMB) is required by Section 2, Ninth, to investigate the dispute, to determine who is the authorized representative, if any, and to certify such representative. The NMB's duties do not arise until its services have been invoked by a party to the dispute. The Railway Labor Act is silent as to how the invocation of a representation dispute is to be accomplished and the NMB has not promulgated regulations requiring any specific vehicle. Nonetheless, 29 C.F.R. § 1203.2, provides that applications for the services of the NMB under Section 2, Ninth, to investigate representation disputes may be made on printed forms secured from the NMB's Office of Legal Affairs or on the Internet at
2. The application form provides necessary information to the NMB so that it can determine the amount of staff and resources required to conduct an investigation and fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Without this information, the NMB would have to delay the commencement of the investigation, which is contrary to the intent of the Railway Labor Act.
3. There is no improved technological method for obtaining this information. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.”
4. There is no duplication in obtaining this information.
5. Rarely are representation elections conducted for small businesses. Carriers/employers are not permitted to request our services regarding representation investigations. The labor organizations, which are the typical requesters, are national in scope and would not qualify as small businesses. Even in situations where the invocation comes from a small labor organization, we believe the burden in completing the application form is minimal and that no reduction in burden could be made.
6. The NMB is required by Section 2, Ninth, to investigate the dispute, to determine who is the authorized representative, if any, and to certify such representative. The NMB has no ability to control the frequency, technical, or legal obstacles, which would reduce the burden.
7. The information requested by the NMB is consistent with the general information collection guidelines of CFR 1320.6. The NMB has no ability to control the data provided or timing of the invocation. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.”
8. No payments or gifts have been provided by the NMB to any respondents of the form.
9. There are no questions of a sensitive nature on the form.
10. The total time burden on respondents is 17.00 hours annually—this is the time required to collect information. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information.
11. The total collection and mail cost burden on respondents is estimated at $615.40 annually ($582.08 time cost burden + $33.32 mail cost burden.)
a. The respondents will not incur any capital costs or start up costs for this collection.
b. Cost burden on respondents—detail:
We are estimating that a mid-level clerical person, with an average salary of $34.24 per hour, will be completing the “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute” form. The total burden is estimated at 17 hours, therefore, the total time burden cost is estimated at $582.08 per year.
The collection of this information is not mandatory; it is a voluntary request from airline and railroad carrier employees seeking to invoke an investigation of a representation dispute. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information. However, the estimated hour burden costs of the respondents may vary due to the complexity of the specific question in dispute. The revision of the form requiring a new application for every craft or class will have little effect on the number of application submitted. In 2012 and 2013, no applications were filed that included a request for representation services for more than one craft or class.
The application form is available from the NMB's Office of Legal Affairs and is also available on the Internet at
12. The total annualized Federal cost is $889.49. This includes the costs of printing and mailing the forms upon request of the parties. The completed applications are maintained by the Office of Legal Affairs.
Basis (mail cost): Forms are requested approximately 3 times per year and it takes 5 minutes to prepare the form for mail
Basis (processing cost): Representation is requested approximately 70 times per year and it takes 20 minutes to process each application
13. Item 13—no change in annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden.
14. The information collected by the application will not be published.
15. The NMB will display the OMB expiration date on the form.
16(a)—the form does not reduce the burden on small entities; however, the burden is minimized and voluntary.
16(b)—the form does not indicate the retention period for record keeping requirements.
16(c)—the form is not part of a statistical survey.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, as well as comments on any legal and substantive issues raised, should be directed to Samantha Williams at 202–692–5010 or via internet address
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory issue summary; request for comment and public meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is seeking public comment on a draft regulatory issue summary (RIS) to supplement the staff's endorsement of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Joint Task Force report entitled, “Guideline on Licensing Digital Upgrades: EPRI TR–102348, Revision 1, NEI 01–01: A Revision of EPRI TR–102348 To Reflect Changes to the 10 CFR 50.59 Rule,” (hereinafter referred to as NEI 01–01.) in RIS 2002–22.
Submit comments by August 2, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Brian Harris, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), telephone: 301–415–2277, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0154 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–2017–0154 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 will post 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 into ADAMS.
The RIS is intended for all holders of and applicants for power reactor operating licenses or construction permits under part 50 of title 10 of the
This RIS is intended to clarify the endorsed NEI 01–01 guidance regarding licensee upgrades to digital instrumentation and control systems. Specifically, this RIS clarifies the guidance in NEI 01–01 pertaining to the performance and documentation of adequate technical evaluations and adequately documented qualitative assessments to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 “Changes, tests and experiments.” The attachment to this RIS provides a framework for preparing and documenting qualitative assessments considered acceptable to serve as a technical basis supporting the responses to key 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) evaluations.
The NRC issues RISs to communicate with stakeholders on a broad range of matters. This may include communicating and clarifying NRC technical or policy positions on regulatory matters that have not been communicated to or are not broadly understood by the nuclear industry.
The NRC is requesting public comments on the draft RIS. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting to discuss this RIS and the issues associated with clarification of the applicability of the endorsed NEI 01–01 guidance. All comments that are to receive consideration in the final RIS must still be submitted electronically or in writing as indicated in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to extend to July 18, 2018 the implementation of FINRA Rule 4240. FINRA Rule 4240 implements an interim pilot program with respect to margin requirements for certain transactions in credit default swaps that are security-based swaps.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
On May 22, 2009, the Commission approved FINRA Rule 4240,
As explained in the Approval Order, FINRA Rule 4240, coterminous with certain Commission actions, was intended to address concerns arising from systemic risk posed by CDS, including, among other things, risks to the financial system arising from the lack of a central clearing counterparty to clear and settle CDS.
The Commission and the CFTC have proposed or adopted rules with respect to swaps and security-based swaps pursuant to Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA is proposing that the implementation date of the proposed rule change will be July 18, 2017. The proposed rule change will expire on July 18, 2018.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that extending the implementation of FINRA Rule 4240 for a limited period, to July 18, 2018, in light of the continuing development of the CDS business and ongoing regulatory developments, helps to promote stability in the financial markets and regulatory certainty for members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify the fee schedule applicable to the Exchange's options platform (“BZX Options”) to amend the fees for logical ports. A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port established is specific to a Member or non-Member and grants that Member or non-Member the ability to operate a specific application, such as FIX order entry or PITCH data receipt. The Exchange's Multicast PITCH data feed is available from two primary feeds, identified as the “A feed” and the “C feed”, which contain the same information but differ only in the way such feeds are received. The Exchange also offers two redundant fees, identified as the “B feed” and the “D feed.” The Exchange also offers a bulk-quoting interface which allows Users
The Exchange currently charges for logical ports (including Multicast PITCH Spin Server and GRP ports) a fee $650 per port per month. The Exchange now proposes to amend the fees for logical ports, Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports for a set of primary ports (A or C feed), and GRP Ports for a set of primary ports (A or C feed) to $750 per month.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the monthly fee for ports with bulk quoting capabilities. The Exchange currently charges $1,500 per month for the User's first five logical ports with bulk quoting capabilities. Each logical port with bulk quoting capabilities in excess of five logical ports is subject to a fee of $2,000 per month. The Exchange will continue to charge $1,500 per month for the User's first and second logical ports. However, any logical port with bulk quoting capabilities in excess of two logical ports would be subject to a fee of $2,500 per month.
The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee schedule on July 3, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer connectivity services as a means of facilitating the trading activities of Members and other participants. Accordingly, fees charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for logical ports are equitably allocated, reasonable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that the proposed fees will help the Exchange to cover increasing infrastructure costs associated with offering and maintaining logical ports connections. The Exchange also notes its proposed fees are only modestly higher than those currently charged by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its fee schedule are non-discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members. All Members that voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes its proposed amendments to its fee schedule would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors. Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
The Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including logical port fees, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all Members and non-Members equally.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 26, 2017, ICE Clear Europe Limited (“ICE Clear Europe) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
ICE Clear Europe proposed changes to its EOD Price Discovery Policy with respect to the calculation of firm trade notional limits for single-name CDS. Under its current EOD Price Discovery Policy, ICE Clear Europe requires CDS Clearing Members
In connection with the firm trade obligation, ICE Clear Europe has established pre-defined maximum notional amounts for firm trades in single-name CDS contracts (“firm trade notional limits”), which are currently set at the Clearing Member level.
ICE Clear Europe believes that such an approach is appropriate because an affiliate group may have multiple CDS Clearing Members, which, in the absence of the proposed amendments, could result in a group-wide limit being multiples of the single entity notional limit.
In addition to the changes to the firm trade notional limits, ICE Clear Europe also proposed changes to the EOD Price Discovery Policy to update references to ICE Clear Europe's Clearing Risk department and Head of Clearing Risk, as well as to certain other risk personnel.
Other proposed changes to the EOD Price Discovery Policy include adding background information regarding standards relating to ICE Clear Europe's risk appetite, and related metrics and limits. Additionally, ICE Clear Europe proposed to amend the EOD Price Discovery Policy to include additional procedures relating to model validation and policy review. Under these amendments, the underlying models used to support the EOD Price Discovery Policy will be subject to an annual independent validation, and, pursuant to its terms of reference, the
Beyond amendments to its EOD Price Discovery Policy, ICE Clear Europe also proposed to amend its Price Submission Disciplinary Framework with respect to the provisions regarding the imposition of fines, known as fixed cash assessments, in instances where members do not submit required prices. Under the proposed amendments to the Price Submission Disciplinary Framework, at the end of each calendar month ICE Clear Europe will collect the details of alleged Clearing Member missed price submissions. Once these details are obtained, ICE Clear Europe will issue a Notice of Investigation pursuant to Rule 1002 of its CDS Clearing Rulebook to the relevant Clearing Member setting forth the details of the missed price submission. ICE Clear Europe would then perform its investigation, and within five days of sending the Notice of Investigation, provide the Clearing Member with a Letter of Mindedness, which sets forth ICE Clear Europe's preliminary factual conclusions and proposed cash assessment. Thereafter, ICE Clear Europe would provide the Clearing Member ten days from the date of the Letter of Mindedness to inform ICE Clear Europe of any factual errors or objections. After this ten-day period, ICE Clear Europe would finalize its findings and course of action.
Furthermore, under the proposed amendments ICE Clear Europe's Price Submission Disciplinary Framework would provide that, if a Clearing Member is able to demonstrate that (i) the alleged missed price submissions are the first instance(s) of a missed submission with respect to a specific instrument in that month; (ii) provide an adequate explanation for the missed price submissions; and (iii) offer a remedial plan to prevent future missed submissions, ICE Clear Europe may determine to take no action. However, if another missed price submission for the same type of instrument occurs within ninety days of the first missed price submission then, under the proposed amendments, the Clearing Member will be subject to a cash assessment for both the first and subsequent missed price submissions. Additionally, ICE Clear Europe's head of clearing compliance would have the ability to determine that a Clearing Member should not be subject to a cash assessment if a Clearing Member is able to demonstrate that an alleged missed submission occurred due to extraordinary circumstances outside of the Clearing Member's control.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, which amends ICE Clear Europe's EOD Price Discovery Policy and Price Submission Disciplinary Framework, is consistent with relevant provisions of Section 17A of the Act and the applicable provisions of Rule 17Ad–22 thereunder.
With respect to the changes to ICE Clear Europe's EOD Price Discovery Policy that amend the application of the firm trade notional limit to be imposed at the CP affiliate group level rather than at the individual Clearing Member level, the changes are intended to manage what, in ICE Clear Europe's view, is an inappropriate level of risk to its Clearing Members, while also ensuring the integrity of the end-of-day price submission process. ICE Clear Europe asserts that the proposed change is intended to apply to Clearing Members fairly, and ICE Clear Europe has represented that the proposed rule
Regarding the changes to the EOD Price Discovery Policy that provide for validation of models supporting the end-of-day price discovery process and for review of the EOD Price Discovery Policy by the Board, the Commission believes that the proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, Rule 17Ad–22(e)(3)(i), and Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(vii). By requiring an independent validation of models used to support the EOD Price Discovery Policy, ICE Clear Europe will be better able to ensure that the end-of-day pricing models are appropriately designed and provide reliable results in the end-of-day pricing process. Additionally, with the requirement that the EOD Price Discovery Policy be reviewed at least annually by the CDS Risk Committee, and ICE Clear Europe Board and separately requiring that material changes be approved by ICE Clear Europe's Board, with the advice of both the CDS and Board Risk Committees, the proposed rule changes will provide for more substantial involvement in the ongoing management of, and review of changes to, the end-of-day pricing processes by those responsible for ICE Clear Europe's risk governance. Thus, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change will result in more consistent oversight and improvement of the EOD Price Discovery Policy and the underlying models and processes related thereto. The Commission therefore finds that the proposed rule change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions, consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F), and also is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(3)(i) regarding periodic review and annual approval by the Board, and the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(vii) regarding model validation of models related to the covered clearing agency's margin system.
The Commission also finds that the proposed changes to ICE Clear Europe's Price Submission Disciplinary Framework are consistent with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the proposed changes would amend and formalize the process in which Clearing Members are sanctioned for failure to comply with the price submission process. Specifically, the proposed rule change will set forth the process under which ICE Clear Europe will provide notice to Clearing Members of its allegation(s) of their failures to meet the price submission requirements, methods in which the Clearing Members can respond or object, and the sanctions that will be imposed for failures to meet the price submission requirements. The Commission finds that the formalization of this process in ICE Clear Europe's Price Submission Disciplinary Framework is consistent with the requirement of Section 17A(b)(3)(G) of the Act that the rules of a clearing agency provide that its participants shall be appropriately disciplined for violations of any provision of the clearing agency's rules by sanction; and that Clearing Members will be duly informed regarding such discipline, consistent with Section 17A(b)(5)(A) of the Act.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
Nationwide Fund Advisors (the “Adviser”), ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the “Distributor”).
Applicants request an order (“Order”) that permits: (a) Actively managed series of certain open-end management investment companies to issue shares (“Shares”) redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at the next-determined net asset value plus or minus a market-determined premium or discount that may vary during the trading day; (c) certain series to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days from the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares; and (f) certain series to create and redeem Shares in kind in a master-feeder structure. The Order would incorporate by reference terms and conditions of a previous order granting the same relief sought by applicants, as that order may be amended from time to time (“Reference Order”).
The application was filed on June 7, 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 July 24, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an
The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. Applicants: Nationwide Fund Advisors, 10 West Nationwide Blvd., Columbus, Ohio 43215; ETF Series Solutions, 615 East Michigan Street, 4th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202; Quasar Distributors, LLC, 777 East Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Courtney S. Thornton, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6812, or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6821 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Trust is registered as an open-end management investment company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Delaware. Applicants seek relief with respect to one Fund (as defined below, and that Fund, the “Initial Fund”). The portfolio positions of each Fund will consist of securities and other assets selected and managed by its Adviser or Subadviser (as defined below) to pursue the Fund's investment objective.
2. The Adviser, a Delaware business trust, will be the investment adviser to the Initial Fund. An Adviser (as defined below) will serve as investment adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Adviser may retain one or more subadvisers (each a “Subadviser”) to manage the portfolios of the Funds. Any Subadviser will be registered, or not subject to registration, under the Advisers Act.
3. The Distributor is a Delaware limited liability company and a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds. Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any distributor of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser (included in the term “Distributor”). Any Distributor will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order.
4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c–1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. The requested Order would permit applicants to offer exchange-traded managed funds. Because the relief requested is the same as the relief granted by the Commission under the Reference Order and because the Adviser has entered into, or anticipates entering into, a licensing agreement with Eaton Vance Management, or an affiliate thereof in order to offer exchange-traded managed funds,
5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Fund and to any other existing or future open-end management investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser (any such entity included in the term “Adviser”); and (b) operates as an exchange-traded managed fund as described in the Reference Order; and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the Order and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference herein (each such company or series and Initial Fund, a “Fund”).
6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provisions 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. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and the general purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
7. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in the Reference Order: (1) With respect to the relief requested pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act, the relief is 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; (2) with respect to the relief request pursuant to section 17(b) of the Act, the proposed transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, are consistent with the policies of each registered investment company concerned and consistent with the general purposes of the Act; and (3) with respect to the relief requested pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act, the relief is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
By the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
The principal purpose of the proposed changes is to make changes to ICC's cash investment yield schedule.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICC currently retains a portion of interest earned on cash balances, net of cash management expenses. The portion of interest retained is based on an established cash investment yield schedule, which is set forth in the ICC Collateral Management presentation available on the ICC Web site.
Currently ICC retains a 10 bps spread for interest rate market environments of 50 bps or greater, net of expenses. As a result of increased treasury expenses due to continued business and regulatory focus on liquidity, ICC proposes an increase to the ICC portion of investment yield on cash balances for higher interest rate market environments (
The investment yield schedule changes will apply to both house and client accounts, and ICC proposes to make such changes effective July 3, 2017. ICC will issue a circular notification in advance of the effective date.
ICC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act .
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition. The changes to ICC's investment yield schedule will apply uniformly across all market participants. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ICC–2017–007 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 715(b)(3) to specify an exception to the manner in which Immediate-or-Cancel Orders will be handled by the System when entered through the Specialized Quote Feed
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend ISE Rule 715(b)(3) to specify the manner in which an Immediate-or-Cancel Order will interact with certain order protections when entered through SQF. An Immediate-or-Cancel Order is defined as a limit order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is to be treated as cancelled.
With the introduction of SQF, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 715(b)(3) to state that an Immediate-or-Cancel order entered by a Market Maker through SQF will not be subject to the (i) Limit Order Price Protection and Size Limitation Protection as defined in ISE Rule 714(b)(2) and (3); or (ii) Limit Order Price Protection as defined in Supplementary Material .07(d) to ISE Rule 722. All other Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered through FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise will continue to be subject to these protections.
ISE Rule 714, entitled “Automatic Execution of Orders,” contains a section (b)(2) and (3) which applies to order protections that are automatically enforced by the System. The Limit Order Price Protection sets a limit on the amount by which incoming limit orders to buy may be priced above the Exchange's best offer and by which incoming limit orders to sell may be priced below the Exchange's best bid. Limit orders that exceed the pricing limit are rejected.
ISE Rule 714(b)(3) provides a protection for size limitation. The System limits the number of contracts an incoming order may specify. Orders that exceed the maximum number of contracts are rejected.
Supplementary Material .07(d) to ISE Rule 722 provides for a Limit Order Price Protection for Complex Orders. This protection limits the amount by which the net price of an incoming complex limit order to buy may exceed the net price available from the individual options series on the Exchange and by which the net price of
The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in Q2 2017. The ISE migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis as specified in alert to Members that was issued by the Exchange in the form of an Options Trader Alert.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With the adoption of the SQF protocol on INET, the Exchange will offer Market Makers the ability to expeditiously submit Immediate-or-Cancel orders through SQF, without having to involve a different protocol and method of entry such as FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise. With the ability for Market Makers to utilize the SQF protocol to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, in addition to having the ability to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders on FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise, similar to other market participants, Market Makers may submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders into SQF allowing them to manage risk utilizing a single protocol, SQF.
Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide liquidity to the market and are subject to certain obligations, including a requirement to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”) utilizes its MIAX Express Interface (MEI), a quoting interface, for market makers to enter immediate-or-cancel orders.
Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on ISE and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market-Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error from being entered. The Exchange believes that Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk when submitting Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these participants. If Market Makers desire the Limit Order Protections for single leg and complex orders and the Size Limitation Protections for single leg orders, they may utilize the FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise protocols for entering their orders. The Exchange notes that market makers on NASDAQ Phlx LLC (“Phlx”) may enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and are similarly not subject to certain risk protections today.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on ISE and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market-Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error from being entered. Market Makers also transact a large amount of orders on the Exchange and bring liquidity to the market. Market Makers should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has stated that it is requesting this waiver because ISE intends to offer to Market Makers the functionality to submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF at the start of the INET migration, even though the Limit Order Price Protections in ISE Rule 714(b)(2) and Supplementary Material .07(d) to ISE Rule 722 and the Size Limitation Protection in ISE Rule 714(b)(3) would not apply to those orders. The Exchange believes that Market Makers should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, due to the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange places on Market Makers, unlike other market participants. Additionally the Exchange believes that Market Makers have the ability to manage their own risk when submitting Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF. The Exchange represents that it will continue to assess the risk protections that are applied to orders and will file to adopt additional risk protections if it determines that such additional protections are appropriate in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because this waiver will enable the Exchange to permit Market Makers to utilize the SQF protocol to submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders in the symbols that have been migrated to INET, thereby allowing Market Makers to manage their risk through a single protocol for entering orders and quotations and comply with their continuous quoting requirements. The Commission notes that Market Makers are sophisticated market participants that have alternative methods to manage risk and that the Exchange will continue to assess the need for additional risk protections that may be appropriate, including for Immediate-or-Cancel Orders submitted through SQF. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting an exemption from all provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, except sections 9, 17, 30, and 36 through 53 of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder (the “Rules and Regulations”). With respect to sections 17(a), (d), (f), (g) and (j) and 30(a), (b), (e), and (h) of the Act, and the Rules and Regulations, and rule 38a–1 under the Act, the exemption is limited as set forth in the application.
Applicants request an order to exempt certain limited partnerships and other entities formed for the benefit of eligible employees of The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. (“BCG”) and its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act. Each such entity will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act.
BCG and Green Falcon Investors I, L.P. (the “Existing Fund”).
The application was filed on September 16, 2016 and was amended on March 08, 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 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 July 24, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, 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 Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090; Applicants: One Beacon Street, 10th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
Rachel Loko, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551–6883 or Aaron Gilbride, Acting Branch Chief, at (202) 551–6906 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. BCG, a Massachusetts corporation, is a management consulting firm. Any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with BCG is each a “BCG Entity”.
2. The Existing Fund is a Delaware limited partnership formed in 2016 pursuant to a limited partnership agreement (the “Existing Fund Agreement”). The applicants may in the future offer additional pooled investment vehicles substantially similar in all material respects (other than form of organization, investment objective and strategy, and other differences described in the application) to Eligible Investors (as defined below) (the “Subsequent Funds” and, together with the Existing Fund, the “Investment Funds”).
3. The Existing Fund is organized to provide a benefit for Eligible Investors by providing the opportunity to participate in certain investment opportunities which would in all likelihood be unavailable to such investors acting individually. The Investment Funds will invest in certain investment opportunities that come to the attention of BCG or a BCG Entity. These opportunities may include investments in operating businesses, separate accounts with registered or unregistered investment advisers, investments in pooled investment vehicles such as registered investment companies, investment companies exempt from registration under the Act, commodity pools, and other securities investments (each particular investment being referred to herein as an “Investment”). Applicants submit that a substantial community of interest exists among BCG, the BCG Entities and the current and future members (“Members”) of the Existing Fund, given the purposes and operations of the Existing Fund and the nature of the Eligible Investors participating in such fund. BCG will “control” each Investment Fund within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act.
4. Interests in an Investment Fund (“Interests”) will be offered and sold by the Investment Funds in reliance upon the exemption from registration under section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or pursuant to Regulation D or Regulation S promulgated under the Securities Act. Interests in any Investment Fund (other than short-term paper) will be offered only to BCG, BCG Entities, or Eligible Investors. “Eligible Investors” means persons who at the time of investment are: (a) Current or former employees, partners, principals, officers and directors of BCG or a BCG Entity (including people involved in administration, marketing, and operations of BCG or a BCG Entity) (“Eligible Employees”), (b) the immediate family members of Eligible Employees, which are parents, children, spouses of children, spouses, and siblings, including step or adoptive relationships (“Immediate Family Members”),
BCG or any BCG Entity that acquires Interests in an Investment Fund will be an accredited investor. An Eligible Investment Vehicle may purchase an Interest from an Investment Fund or from a Member only if either (i) the investment vehicle is an “accredited investor”, as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act or (ii) the Eligible Employee is a settlor
5. An Investment Fund will be managed by its general partner (“General Partner”). The General Partner of the Existing Fund is a limited liability company. The General Partner will be wholly owned by BCG and will be managed by BCG through its executive committee and/or such other committee to be formed for such purpose (“Investment Committee”). The Investment Committee will be comprised of senior professionals of BCG. The chief function of the Investment Committee will be to review and select Investments for an Investment Fund (or a series thereof) from time to time. The General Partner will register as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), if such registration is required under the Advisers Act and the rules thereunder.
6. Administration of each Investment Fund will be vested in the General Partner. The General Partner may determine to delegate administrative activities to a third-party administrator. If a third-party administrator is retained by the General Partner, the administrator will not recommend Investments or exercise investment discretion. The only functions of the administrator will be ministerial.
7. The specific investment objectives and strategies for an Investment Fund will be set forth in an informative memorandum relating to the Interests being offered, and in the relevant Investment Fund Agreement, and each Eligible Investor will receive a copy of the informative memorandum and Investment Fund Agreement before making an investment in the Investment Fund. The terms of an Investment Fund will be disclosed to each Eligible Investor at the time the investor is invited to participate in the Investment Fund.
8. The value of the Members' capital accounts will be determined at such times as the General Partner deems appropriate or necessary; however, such valuation will be done at least annually at the Investment Fund's fiscal year-end. The General Partner will value the assets held by an Investment Fund at the current market price (closing price) in the case of marketable securities. All other securities or assets will be valued by the General Partner in good faith at fair value.
9. Each Investment Fund will generally bear its own expenses. BCG or a BCG Entity, as applicable, may be reimbursed by an Investment Fund for reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket costs directly associated with the organization and operation of the Investment Fund, including administrative expenses. There will be no allocation of any of BCG's operating expenses to the Investment Funds. Some of the investment opportunities available to an Investment Fund may involve parties for which BCG was, is or will be retained to act as management consultants, and BCG may be paid by such parties for management consulting services and for related disbursements and charges. These amounts paid to BCG will not be paid by an Investment Fund itself but by the entities in which an Investment Fund invests or their sponsors. No management fee or other compensation will be paid by an Investment Fund or the Members to the Investment Committee, any member of the Investment Committee, or the General Partner. Also, no fee of any kind will be charged in connection with the sale of Interests in an Investment Fund.
10. Within 120 days after the end of its fiscal year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, each Investment Fund will send its Members an annual report regarding its operations. The annual report of the Investment Fund will contain financial statements audited by an independent accounting firm. For purposes of this requirement, “audit” has the meaning defined in rule 1–02(d) of Regulation S–X. The Investment Fund will maintain a file containing any financial statements and other information received from the issuers of the Investments held by the Investment Fund, and will make such file available for inspection by its Members in accordance with its Investment Fund Agreement. Each Investment Fund, within 90 days or as soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year of the Investment Fund, will transmit a report to each Member setting out information with respect to that Member's distributive share of income, gains, losses, credits and other items for U.S. federal income tax purposes, resulting from the operation of the Investment Fund during that year.
11. Members will not be entitled to redeem their Interests in a closed-end
12. Each Member will commit to contribute a fixed amount of capital to an Investment Fund (“Capital Commitment”).
13. An Investment Fund will not acquire any security issued by a registered investment company if immediately after the acquisition the Investment Fund would own more than 3% of the total outstanding voting stock of the registered investment company.
1. Section 6(b) of the Act provides, in part, that the Commission will exempt employees' securities companies from the provisions of the Act to the extent that the exemption is consistent with the protection of investors. Section 6(b) provides that the Commission will consider, in determining the provisions of the Act from which the company should be exempt, the company's form of organization and capital structure, the persons owning and controlling its securities, the price of the company's securities and the amount of any sales load, the disposition of the proceeds of any sales of the company's securities, how the company's funds are invested, and the relationship between the company and the issuers of the securities in which it invests. Section 2(a)(13) defines an employees' securities company as any investment company all of whose securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned (a) by current or former employees, or persons on retainer, of one or more affiliated employers, (b) by immediate family members of such persons, or (c) by such employer or employers together with any of the persons in (a) or (b).
2. Section 7 of the Act generally prohibits investment companies that are not registered under section 8 of the Act from selling or redeeming their securities. Section 6(e) of the Act provides that, in connection with any order exempting an investment company from any provision of section 7, certain provisions of the Act, as specified by the Commission, will be applicable to the company and other persons dealing with the company as though the company were registered under the Act. Applicants request an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Act exempting applicants from all provisions of the Act, except sections 9, 17, 30, 36 through 53, and the Rules and Regulations. With respect to sections 17(a), (d), (f), (g) and (j) and 30(a), (b), (e) and (h) of the Act and the Rules and Regulations, and rule 38a–1 under the Act, applicants request a limited exemption as set forth in the application.
3. Section 17(a) of the Act generally prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of an affiliated person, acting as principal, from knowingly selling or purchasing any security or other property to or from the company. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) to (a) permit a BCG Entity (or any affiliated person of such BCG Entity), or any affiliated person (as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act) of an Investment Fund (“First-Tier Affiliates”) or affiliated persons of such persons (“Second-Tier Affiliates,” and together with First-Tier Affiliates, “Affiliates”), acting as principal, to engage in any transaction directly or
4. Applicants submit that the exemptions sought from section 17(a) are consistent with the purposes of the Act and the protection of investors. Applicants state that the Members will be informed in an Investment Fund's offering materials of the possible extent of the dealings by such Investment Fund and any portfolio company with BCG, any BCG Entity or any affiliated person thereof. Applicants also state that, as experienced professionals acting on behalf of financial services businesses, the Members will be able to evaluate the risks associated with such dealings. Applicants assert that the community of interest among the General Partner, the Members, BCG and the BCG Entities will serve to reduce the risk of abuse in transactions involving an Investment Fund and BCG, any BCG Entity or any affiliated person thereof.
5. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d–1 under the Act prohibit any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from participating in any joint arrangement with the registered investment company unless authorized by the Commission. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 to the extent necessary to permit an Investment Fund to engage in transactions in which an Affiliate participates as a joint or a joint and several participants with such Investment Fund.
6. Joint transactions in which an Investment Fund could participate might include the following: (a) A joint investment by one or more Investment Funds in a security in which BCG or a BCG Entity, or another Investment Fund, is a joint participant or plans to become a participant; (b) a joint investment by one or more Investment Funds in another Investment Fund; and (c) a joint investment by one or more Investment Funds in a security in which an Affiliate is an investor or plans to become an investor, including situations in which an Affiliate has a partnership or other interest in, or compensation arrangements with, such issuer, sponsor or offeror.
7. Applicants assert that compliance with section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 would cause an Investment Fund to forego investment opportunities simply because a Member, BCG, a BCG Entity or other affiliated persons of the Investment Fund, BCG or the BCG Entities also had, or contemplated making, a similar investment. In addition, because attractive investment opportunities of the types considered by an Investment Fund often require that each participant make available funds in an amount that may be substantially greater than that available to the investor alone, there may be certain attractive opportunities of which an Investment Fund may be unable to take advantage except as a co-participant with other persons, including Affiliates. Applicants believe that the flexibility to structure co- and joint investments in the manner described above will not involve abuses of the type section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 were designed to prevent. Applicants acknowledge that any transactions subject to section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 for which exemptive relief has not been requested in the application would require specific approval by the Commission.
8. Section 17(f) of the Act designates the entities that may act as investment company custodians, and rule 17f–2 under the Act allows an investment company to act as self-custodian. Applicants request an exemption to permit the following exceptions from the requirements of rule 17f–2: (i) Compliance with paragraph (b) of the rule may be achieved through safekeeping in the locked files of BCG or a BCG partner; (ii) for the purposes of the rule, (A) employees of BCG or a BCG Entity will be deemed employees of the Investment Funds, (B) officers and members of the Managing Member and members of the Investment Committee will be deemed to be officers of such Investment Funds, and (C) officers and members of the Managing Member and members of the Investment Committee will be deemed to be the board of directors of such Investment Funds; and (iii) instead of the verification procedure under paragraph (f) of the rule, verification will be effected quarterly by two employees, each of whom shall have sufficient knowledge, sophistication and experience in business matters to perform such examination. Applicants expect that most of the Investments will be evidenced by partnership agreements or similar documents. Such instruments are most suitably kept in BCG's files, where they can be referred to as necessary. Applicants will comply with all other provisions of rule 17f–2.
9. Section 17(g) and rule 17g–1 generally require the bonding of officers and employees of a registered investment company who have access to its securities or funds. Rule 17g–1 requires that a majority of directors who are not interested persons of a registered investment company (“disinterested directors”) take certain actions and give certain approvals relating to fidelity bonding. Applicants request an exemption from the requirement, contained in rule 17g–1, that a majority of the “directors” of the Investment Funds who are not “interested persons” of the respective Investment Funds (as defined in the Act) take certain actions and make certain approvals concerning bonding and request instead that such actions and approvals be taken by the Managing Members, regardless of whether any of them is deemed to be an interested person of the Investment Funds. Each Managing Member will be an interested person of the Investment Funds.
10. The Investment Funds request an exemption from the requirements of rule 17g–1(g) and (h) relating to the filing of copies of fidelity bonds and related information with the Commission and relating to the provisions of notices to the board of directors. Applicants also request an exemption from the requirements of rule 17g–1(j)(3) that the Investment Funds have a majority of disinterested directors, that those disinterested directors select and nominate any other disinterested directors, and that any legal counsel for those disinterested directors be independent legal counsel. Applicants believe that the filing requirements of rule 17g–1 are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to the Investment Funds. The General Partner will maintain the materials otherwise required to be filed with the Commission by rule 17g–1(g) and the applicants agree that all such material will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. The General Partner will designate a person to maintain the records otherwise required to be filed with the Commission under paragraph (g) of the rule. The
11. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements, contained in section 17(j) of the Act and rule 17j–1 under the Act, that every registered investment company adopt a written code of ethics and every “access person” of such registered investment company report to the investment company with respect to transactions in any security in which such access person has, or by reason of the transaction acquires, any direct or indirect beneficial ownership in the security. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in rule 17j–1, with the exception of rule 17j–1(b), because they are burdensome and unnecessary as applied to the Investment Funds and because the exemption is consistent with the policy of the Act. Requiring the Investment Funds to adopt a written code of ethics and requiring access persons to report each of their securities transactions would be time-consuming and expensive and would serve little purpose in light of, among other things, the community of interest among the Members of the Investment Fund and the General Partner by virtue of their common association with BCG or a BCG Entity. Accordingly, the requested exemption is consistent with the purposes of the Act because the dangers against which section 17(j) and rule 17j–1 are intended to guard are not present in the case of the Investment Funds.
12. Applicants request an exemption from the requirements in sections 30(a), 30(b), and 30(e) of the Act, and the Rules and Regulations under those sections, that registered investment companies prepare and file with the Commission and mail to their shareholders certain periodic reports and financial statements. Applicants contend that the forms prescribed by the Commission for periodic reports have little relevance to the Investment Funds and would entail administrative and legal costs that outweigh any benefit to the Members. Applicants request exemptive relief to the extent necessary to permit the Investment Funds to report annually to their Members. Applicants also request an exemption from section 30(h) of the Act to the extent necessary to exempt the General Partner, any 10 percent shareholder, and any other person who may be deemed to be an officer, director, member of an advisory board, or otherwise subject to section 30(h), from filing Forms 3, 4 and 5 under section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) with respect to their ownership of Interests in the Investment Funds. Applicants assert that, because there is no trading market for Interests and the transfer of Interests is severely restricted, these filings are unnecessary for the protection of investors and burdensome to those required to make them.
13. Rule 38a–1 requires investment companies to adopt, implement and periodically review written policies reasonably designed to prevent violation of the federal securities laws and to appoint a chief compliance officer. Each Investment Fund will comply with rule 38a–1(a), (c) and (d), except that (i) the members of the Investment Committee of each Investment Fund will fulfill the responsibilities assigned to the board of directors under the rule, and (ii) because all members of the Investment Committee would be considered interested persons of the Investment Funds, approval by a majority of the disinterested board members required by rule 38a–1 will not be obtained. In addition, the Investment Funds will comply with the requirement in rule 38a–1(a)(4)(iv) that the chief compliance officer meet with the disinterested directors by having the chief compliance officer meet with the members of the Investment Committee. Applicants represent that each Investment Fund will adopt the written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the terms and conditions of the application, has appointed a chief compliance officer and is otherwise in compliance with the terms and conditions of the application.
The applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Each proposed transaction, to which an Investment Fund is a party, otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) or section 17(d) and rule 17d–1 (the “Section 17 Transactions”) will be effected only if the Investment Committee determines that: (a) The terms of the Section 17 Transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable to Members of the Investment Fund and do not involve overreaching of the Investment Fund or its Members on the part of any person concerned; and (b) the Section 17 Transaction is consistent with the interests of the Members of the Investment Fund, the Investment Fund's organizational documents and the Investment Fund's reports to its Members.
In addition, the Investment Committee will record and preserve a description of such Section 17 Transactions, the findings of the Investment Committee, the information or materials upon which their findings are based and the basis therefor. All such records will be maintained for the life of the Investment Fund and at least six years thereafter, and will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. All such records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for at least the first two years.
2. If purchases or sales are made by an Investment Fund from or to an entity affiliated with the Investment Fund by reason of a member of the Investment Committee (a) serving as an officer, director, general partner or investment adviser of the entity, or (b) having a 5% or more investment in the entity, such individual will not participate in the Investment Fund's determination of whether or not to effect the purchase or sale.
3. The Investment Committee will adopt, and periodically review and update, procedures designed to ensure that reasonable inquiry is made, prior to the consummation of any Section 17 Transaction, with respect to the possible involvement in the transaction of any affiliated person or promoter of or principal underwriter for the Investment Fund, or any affiliated person of such a person, promoter, or principal underwriter.
4. The Investment Committee will not purchase for an Investment Fund any Investment in which a Co-Investor, as defined below, has or proposes to acquire the same class of securities of the same issuer, where the investment involves a joint enterprise or other joint arrangement within the meaning of rule 17d–1 in which the Investment Fund and the Co-Investor are participants, unless any such Co-Investor, prior to disposing of all or part of its investment: (a) Gives the Investment Fund holding such investment sufficient, but not less than one day's notice of its intent to dispose of its investment, and (b) refrains from disposing of its investment unless the Investment Fund holding such investment has the opportunity to dispose of its investment prior to or concurrently with, on the same terms as, and on a pro rata basis with the Co-Investor. The term “Co-Investor” with respect to an Investment Fund means any person who is: (a) An affiliated person of the Investment Fund; (b) BCG and any BCG Entity; (c) a current or former partner or key administrative employee of BCG or a BCG Entity; (d)
The restrictions contained in this condition, however, shall not be deemed to limit or prevent the disposition of an investment by a Co-Investor: (a) To its direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, to any company (a “Parent”) of which the Co-Investor is a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, or to a direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of its Parent; (b) to immediate family members of the Co-Investor or a trust established for the benefit of any such family member; (c) when the investment is comprised of securities that are listed on a national securities exchange registered under section 6 of the Exchange Act; (d) when the investment is comprised of securities that are national market system (“NMS”) stocks pursuant to section 11A(a)(2) of the Exchange Act and rule 600(a) of Regulation NMS thereunder; (e) when the investment is comprised of securities that are listed on or traded on any foreign securities exchange or board of trade that satisfies regulatory requirements under the law of the jurisdiction in which such foreign securities exchange or board of trade is organized similar to those that apply to a national securities exchange or a national market system of securities; or (f) when the investment is comprised of securities that are government securities as defined in section 2(a)(16) of the Act.
5. An Investment Fund will send, within 120 days after the end of its fiscal year, or as soon as practicable thereafter, to each Member who had an interest in the Investment Fund at any time during the fiscal year then ended, reports and information regarding the Investments, including financial statements for such Investment Fund audited by an independent accounting firm. The Investment Committee will make a valuation or have a valuation made of all of the assets of an Investment Fund as of each fiscal year end. In addition, within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year of the Investment Fund or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Investment Fund shall send a report to each person who was a Member at any time during the fiscal year then ended, setting forth such tax information as shall be necessary for the preparation by the Member of his or her federal and state income tax returns and a report of the investment activities of the Investment Fund during such year.
6. An Investment Fund will maintain and preserve, for the life of the Investment Fund and at least six years thereafter, such accounts, books, and other documents as constitute the record forming the basis for the audited financial statements and annual reports of the Investment Fund to be provided to its Members, and agrees that all such records will be subject to examination by the Commission and its staff. All such records will be maintained in an easily accessible place for at least the first two years.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Rulebook (the “Rules”) to provide for the clearance of additional Standard Emerging Market Sovereign CDS contracts (collectively, “EM Contracts”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap contracts. ICC believes the addition of these contracts will benefit the market for credit default swaps by providing market participants the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. Clearing of the additional EM Contracts will not require any changes to ICC's Risk Management Framework or other policies and procedures constituting rules within the meaning of the Act.
ICC proposes amending Subchapter 26D of its Rules to provide for the clearance of additional EM Contracts, specifically the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Kazakhstan. These additional EM Contracts have terms consistent with the other EM Contracts approved for clearing at ICC and governed by Subchapter 26D of the Rules. Minor revisions to Subchapter 26D (Standard Emerging Market Sovereign (“SES”) Single Name) are made to provide for clearing the additional EM Contracts. Specifically, in Rule 26D–102 (Definitions), “Eligible SES Reference Entities” is modified to include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Kazakhstan in the list of specific Eligible SES Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Clearing of the additional EM Contracts will also satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22.
The additional EM Contracts will be available to all ICC participants for clearing. The clearing of these additional EM Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the additional EM Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance of the additional EM Contracts will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ICC–2017–008 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17Ad–3(b) requires registered transfer agents to send a copy of the written notice required under Rule 17Ad–2(c), (d), and (h) to the chief executive officer of each issuer for which the transfer agent acts when it has failed to turnaround at least 75% of all routine items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad–2(a), or to process at least 75% of all items in accordance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad–2(b), for two consecutive months. The issuer may use the information contained in the notices: (1) As an early warning of the transfer agent's non-compliance with the Commission's minimum performance standards regarding registered transfer agents; and (2) to become aware of certain problems and poor performances with respect to the transfer agents that are servicing the issuer's issues. If the issuer does not receive notice of a registered transfer agent's failure to comply with the Commission's minimum performance standards then the issuer will be unable to take remedial action to correct the problem or to find another registered transfer agent. Pursuant to Rule 17Ad–3(b), a transfer agent that has already filed a Notice of Non-Compliance with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17Ad–2 will only be required to send a copy of that notice to issuers for which it acts when that transfer agent fails to turnaround 75% of all routine items or to process 75% of all items.
The Commission estimates that only one transfer agent will meet the requirements of Rule 17Ad–3(b) each year. If a transfer agent fails to meet those turnaround and processing requirements under 17Ad–3(b), it would simply send a copy of the notice to its issuer-clients that had already been produced for the Commission pursuant to Rule 17Ad–2(c) or (d). The Commission estimates the requirement will take each respondent approximately four hours to complete. The Commission staff estimates that compliance staff work at registered transfer agents to comply with the third party disclosure requirement will result in an internal cost of compliance, at an estimated hourly wage of $283, of $1,128 per year per transfer agent (4 hours × $283 per hour = $1,128 per year). Therefore, the aggregate annual internal cost of compliance for the approximately one registered transfer agent each year to comply with Rule 17Ad–3(b) is also $1,128. There are no external labor costs associated with sending the notice to issuers.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Rulebook (the “Rules”) to provide for the clearance of Standard Asia Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, “STASC Contracts”), Standard Asia Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, “STASFC Contracts”), and Standard Emerging Market Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (collectively, “STEMC Contracts”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC 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. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap contracts.
STASC Contracts have similar terms to the Standard European Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (“STEC Contracts”) and Standard Australian Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (“STAC Contracts”) currently cleared by ICC and governed by Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed rules found in Subchapter 26O largely mirror the ICC Rules for STEC Contracts in Subchapter 26G and STAC Contracts in Subchapter 26M, with certain modifications that reflect differences in terms and market conventions between those contracts and STASC Contracts. STASC Contracts will be denominated in United States Dollars.
ICC Rule 26O–102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for the STAC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the definitions found in Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, other than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26O–203 (Restriction on Activity), 26O–206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to STASC Contracts), 26O–303 (STASC Contract Adjustments), 26O–309 (Acceptance of STASC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26O–315 (Terms of the Cleared STASC Contract), 26O–316 (Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix Updates), 26O–502 (Specified Actions), and 26O–616 (Contract Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications for STASC Contracts and are substantially the same as under Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules.
STASFC Contracts have similar terms to the Standard European Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (“STEFC Contracts”) and Standard Australian Financial Corporate Single Name CDS contracts (“STAFC Contracts”) currently cleared by ICC and governed by Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed rules found in Subchapter 26P largely mirror the ICC Rules for STEFC Contracts in Subchapter 26H and STAFC Contracts in Subchapter 26N, with certain modifications that reflect differences in terms and market conventions between those contracts and STASFC Contracts. STASFC Contracts will be denominated in United States Dollars.
ICC Rule 26P–102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for the STASFC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the definitions found in Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules, other than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26P–203 (Restriction on Activity), 26P–206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to STASFC Contracts), 26P–303 (STASFC Contract Adjustments), 26P–309 (Acceptance of STASFC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26P–315 (Terms of the Cleared STASFC Contract), 26P–316 (Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix Updates), 26P–502 (Specified Actions), and 26P–616 (Contract Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications for STASFC Contracts and are substantially the same as under Subchapters 26H and 26N of the ICC Rules.
STEMC Contracts also have similar terms to the STEC and STAC Contracts currently cleared by ICC and governed by Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, respectively. Accordingly, the proposed rules found in Subchapter 26Q largely mirror the ICC Rules for STEC Contracts in Subchapter 26G and STAC Contracts in Subchapter 26M, with certain modifications that reflect differences in terms and market conventions between those contracts and STEMC Contracts. STEMC Contracts will be denominated in United States Dollars.
ICC Rule 26Q–102 (Definitions) sets forth the definitions used for the STEMC Contracts. The definitions are substantially the same as the definitions found in Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules, other than certain conforming changes. ICC Rules 26Q–203 (Restriction on Activity), 26Q–206 (Notices Required of Participants with respect to STEMC Contracts), 26Q–303 (STEMC Contract Adjustments), 26Q–309 (Acceptance of STEMC Contracts by ICE Clear Credit), 26Q–315 (Terms of the Cleared STEMC Contract), 26Q–316 (Relevant Physical Settlement Matrix Updates), 26Q–502 (Specified Actions), and 26Q–616 (Contract Modification) reflect or incorporate the basic contract specifications for STEMC Contracts and are substantially the same as under Subchapters 26G and 26M of the ICC Rules.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Clearing of the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will also satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad–22.
The STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will be available to all ICC participants for clearing. The clearing of these STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance of the STASC, STASFC, and STEMC Contracts will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–ICC–2017–009 and should be submitted on or before July 24, 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Nebraska (FEMA–4321–DR), dated 06/26/2017.
Effective 06/26/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/26/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15189B and for economic injury is 15190B.
Department of State.
Notice of a meeting.
The Department of State is issuing this notice to announce the location, date, time and agenda for the next meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee.
Wednesday, July 19 and Thursday, July 20, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT). An open session of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee will be held on July 19, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EDT). It will last approximately one hour. Participants will participate electronically. Those who wish to participate in the open session should register at
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of State, Annex 5, 2200 C St. NW., Washington, DC. Participants will join the meeting electronically, with instructions provided at
•
•
To pre-register for the meeting or for general questions concerning the meeting, contact the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs—Cultural Heritage Center by phone, (202) 632–6301, or mail:
Pursuant to section 306(e)(2) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (5 U.S.C. 2601
If you wish to make an oral presentation at the meeting, you must request to be scheduled by the above-mentioned date and time, and you must submit a written summary of your oral presentation, ensuring that it is received no later than July 10, 2017, at 11:59 p.m. (EDT), via the
Surface Transportation Board.
Final Decision.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) has approved the settlement agreement (Agreement) proposed by the United States Department of Energy and the United States Department of Defense (together, the Government) and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR); prescribed the Agreement's rate update methodologies (as slightly amended), maximum revenue-to-variable cost (R/VC) ratios, and rates; dismissed NSR as a defendant in these proceedings; extinguished all of NSR's liability (including that of its predecessors and subsidiaries) for reparations; relieved NSR from any further requirement to participate in these proceedings, except in response to a properly issued subpoena under the Board's rules; and continued to hold the proceedings in abeyance pending further settlement negotiations.
Effective Date: The decision is effective on July 28, 2017.
Nathaniel Bawcombe, (202) 245–0376. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: 1–800–877–8339.
In a decision served on June 28, 2017, the Board, under 49 U.S.C. 10704, approved the Agreement negotiated by the Government and NSR to settle these rate
In addition, the Board: (1) Uprescribed the Agreement's rate update methodologies (as slightly amended), maximum R/VC ratios, and rates; (2) dismissed NSR as a defendant in these proceedings; (3) extinguished all of NSR's liability (including that of its predecessors and subsidiaries) for reparations; (4) relieved NSR from any further requirement to participate in these proceedings, except in response to a properly issued subpoena under the Board's rules; and (5) continued to hold these proceedings in abeyance pending further settlement negotiations.
The Board's decision is available on its Web site at
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
As part of its regular business meeting held on June 16, 2017, in Entriken, Pennsylvania, the Commission took the following actions: (1) Approved or tabled the applications of certain water resources projects; and (2) took additional actions, as set forth in the
June 16, 2017.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110–1788.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: 717–238–0423, ext. 1312; fax: 717–238–2436;
In addition to the actions taken on projects identified in the summary above and the listings below, the following items were also presented or acted upon at the business meeting: (1) Election of the member from the Federal Government as Chair of the Commission and the member from the State of New York as the Vice Chair of the Commission for the period of July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018; (2) adoption of FY2018 Regulatory Program Fee Schedule, effective July 1, 2017; (3) adoption of a preliminary FY2019 budget for the period July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019; (4) authorization to execute a treasury management services agreement with First National Bank; (5) approval/ratification of a grant agreement, two contracts and a bank loan payoff; (6) approval of a rulemaking action to clarify application requirements and standards for review of projects, amend the rules dealing with the mitigation of consumptive uses, add a subpart to provide for registration of grandfathered projects and revise requirements dealing with hearings and enforcement actions; (7) denied a request for waiver from EOG Resources Inc.; (8) tabled a request for waiver from Middletown Borough; (9) approval to extend the term of an emergency certificate with Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC until terminated by the Executive Director; (10) adoption of the FY2018–2019 Water Resources Program; (11) adoption of amendments to the
The Commission approved the following project applications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
The Commission tabled action on the following project applications:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509
Pursuant to delegation by the Commission,
This Board is being established pursuant to a Notice of Hearing published in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001;
Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001;
Dr. Sue H. Abreu, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of Termination of the Preparation of Air Tour Management Plan and Environmental Assessment.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), announces that it will no longer prepare an Air Tour Management Plan (ATMP) and Environmental Assessment (EA) for commercial air tour operations over Big Cypress National Preserve in Florida. The FAA and NPS have stopped work on preparation of the ATMP and EA based upon a provision included in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that allowed the agencies and air tour operator(s) to enter into a voluntary agreement as an alternative to an ATMP.
Keith Lusk, Program Manager, AWP–1SP, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Lawndale, California 90261. Telephone: (310) 725–3808.
In an April 19, 2011
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) amended various provisions of NPATMA. One provision provided that as an alternative to an ATMP, to manage commercial air tour operations over a national park, the NPS and the FAA, may enter into a voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour operator (including a new entrant commercial air tour operator and an operator that has IOA) that has applied to conduct commercial air tour operations over a national park. The FAA and NPS entered into voluntary agreements with one existing and one new entrant commercial air tour operator for tours over Big Cypress National Preserve. The voluntary agreements became effective in December 2015. Copies of the voluntary agreements can be found at:
As the agencies and the operators entered into voluntary agreements for commercial air tour operations over Big Cypress National Preserve, an ATMP is no longer required. Therefore, the FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, has stopped work and discontinued the preparation of the ATMP and EA for Big Cypress National Preserve.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for five individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The renewed exemptions were effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before August 2, 2017.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202–366–4001,
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0384 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for two years if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
First perceives a forced whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5–1951.
49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) was adopted in 1970, with a revision in 1971 to allow drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
The five individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the hearing standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the twelve applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement (80 FR 57032; 80 FR 60747). In addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
The five drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a two-year period. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each driver has received a renewed exemption.
As of June 10, 2017, the following five drivers have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11), from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 22708).
The drivers were included in FMCSA–2014–0384. The exemptions were effective on June 10, 2017, and will expire on June 10, 2019.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: (1) Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and (2) report all citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR part 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA. In addition, the driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with passengers in interstate commerce. The exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable CDL testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
Based upon its evaluation of the nine exemption applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(11). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 49 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were effective on May 31, 2017. The exemptions expire on May 31, 2019.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at:
On April 27, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 50 individuals and requested comments from the public (82 FR 19438). The
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 50 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to 49 of these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441),
These 50 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 28 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 27, 2017,
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Charles W. Smith, who is included in this docket, submitted a comment asking if more information was needed for his exemption. Mr. Smith had a complete application at the time he was published in the
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (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 severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Based upon its evaluation of the 50 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following 49 drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):
Gerald G. Blacklock (PA), who was included in the request for comments notice published on April 27, 2017 (82 FR 19438), ceased using insulin during the comment period. As a result, he no longer requires an exemption to operate in interstate commerce and was not issued one by the Agency.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on May 23, 2017, CSX Transportation (CSX) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2017–0056.
CSX seeks to modify the signal system between milepost (MP) QHE–0.00 to MP QHE–2.70, and MP QHX–0.00 to MP QHX–1.20, and MP QHW–0.00 to MP QHW–1.20, on the Baltimore Division, Philadelphia Subdivision, Philadelphia, PA.
CSX proposes to discontinue cab signals; install electronic track circuits, frame communication circuits, Positive Train Control (PTC) compatible microprocessor based vital logic controllers, and replace wayside signals.
The reason CSX gives for the proposed modification is that it will be done in conjunction with other modifications to the signal system to prepare for PTC implementation.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 17, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notice.
The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory Committee (ITS PAC) will hold a meeting on July 18 & 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT) in the Doubletree Crystal City Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
The ITS PAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109–59, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 6007 of Public Law 114–94, Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, December 4, 2015, was created to advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITS PAC makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) Welcome, (2) Subcommittee Breakout Sessions and Updates to Committee, (3) Connected Vehicle Discussion, (4) Discussion of Potential Advice Memorandum Topics, (5) Summary and Adjourn.
The meeting will be open to the public, but limited space will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to present oral statements at the meeting must submit a request to
Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of
Notice of this conference is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations (41 CFR part 102–3) covering management of Federal advisory committees.
Office of Financial Research, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of open meeting.
The Financial Research Advisory Committee for the Treasury's Office of Financial Research (OFR) is convening for its tenth meeting on Thursday, July 20, 2017, in the Ben Strong Room, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be open to the public via live webcast at
The meeting will be held on Thursday, July 20, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held in the Ben Strong Room, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045. The meeting will be open to the public via live webcast at
Susan Stiehm, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Financial Research, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220, (212) 376–9808 (this is not a toll-free number),
Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(a)(2), through implementing regulations at 41 CFR 102–3.150,
•
•
The OFR will post statements on the Committee's Web site,
This is the tenth meeting of the Financial Research Advisory Committee. Topics to be discussed among all members include the OFR's monitoring program, LEI outreach and cyber risk mapping. For more information on the OFR and the Committee, please visit the OFR Web site at
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public roundtable.
Notice is hereby given of the following roundtable of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public roundtable in Washington, DC on July 12, 2017 on “The Health of China's Economy”.
The meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 12, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
444 North Capitol Street NW., Room 285, Washington, DC. A detailed agenda for the roundtable will be posted on the Commission's Web site at
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the roundtable should contact Leslie Tisdale, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202–624–1496, or via email at
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 106–398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113–291 (December 19, 2014).
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Notice of open public meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to review and edit drafts of the 2017 Annual Report to Congress. The Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on the “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People's Republic of China.” Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission will hold a public meeting to review and edit drafts of the 2017 Annual Report to Congress.
The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 13, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Friday, July 14, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
444 North Capitol Street NW., Room 231, Washington, DC 20001. Public seating is limited and will be available on a “first-come, first-served” basis.
Any member of the public seeking further information concerning the meeting should contact Alexis Brigmon, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; telephone: 202–624–1454, or via email at
The Commission is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) with the enactment of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 that was signed into law on November 22, 2005 (Pub. L. 109–108). In accordance with FACA, the Commission's meeting to make decisions concerning the substance and recommendations of its 2017 Annual Report to Congress are open to the public.
• U.S.-China Economic and Trade Relations, including: Chinese Investment in the United States.
• U.S.-China Security Relations, including: Hotspots along China's Maritime Periphery.
• China and the World, including: Hong Kong.
• China's High Tech Development, including: China's Pursuit of Global Dominance in Computing, Robotics, and Biotechnology; and China's Pursuit of Advanced Weapons.
The Commission will also recess the meeting around noon for a lunch break. At the beginning of the lunch break, the Chairman will announce what time the meeting will reconvene.
Congress created the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in 2000 in the National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 106–398), as amended by Division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (Public Law 108–7), as amended by Public Law 109–108 (November 22, 2005), as amended by Public Law 113–291 (December 19, 2014).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden; it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461–5870 or email
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, that the Health Services Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board will conduct in-person and teleconference meetings of its eight Health Services Research (HSR) subcommittees on the dates below from 8:00 a.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m. (unless otherwise listed) at the VHA National Conference Center, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202 (unless otherwise listed):
• HSR 1—Health Care and Clinical Management on August 22–23, 2017;
• HSR 2—Behavioral, Social, and Cultural Determinants of Health and Care on August 22, 2017;
• HSR 3—Healthcare Informatics on August 24–25, 2017;
• HSR 4—Mental and Behavioral Health on August 24–25, 2017;
• HSR 5—Health Care System Organization and Delivery on August 23–24, 2017;
• HSR 6—Post-acute and Long-term Care on August 23, 2017;
• CDA—Career Development Award Meeting on August 24–25, 2017; and
• NRI—Nursing Research Initiative from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on August 25, 2017.
The purpose of the Board is to review health services research and development applications involving: The measurement and evaluation of health care services; the testing of new methods of health care delivery and management; and nursing research. Applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit, mission relevance, and the protection of human and animal subjects. Recommendations regarding funding are submitted to the Chief Research and Development Officer.
Each subcommittee meeting of the Board will be open to the public the first day for approximately one half-hour from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. at the start of the meeting on August 22 (HSR 1, 2), August 23 (HSR 1, 6, 8), August 23–24 (HSR 5), August 24–25 (CDA, HSR 3, 4), and August 25 (NRI) to cover administrative matters and to discuss the general status of the program. Members of the public who wish to attend the open portion of the subcommittee meetings may dial 1–800–767–1750, participant code 10443#.
The remaining portion of each subcommittee meeting will be closed for the discussion, examination, reference to, and oral review of the intramural research proposals and critiques. During the closed portion of each subcommittee meeting, discussion and recommendations will include qualifications of the personnel conducting the studies (the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy), as well as research information (the premature disclosure of which would likely compromise significantly the implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research projects). As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92–463, as amended by Public Law 94–409, closing the meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
No oral or written comments will be accepted from the public for either portion of the meetings. Those who plan to participate during the open portion of a subcommittee meeting should contact Ms. Liza Catucci, Administrative Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service (10P9H), 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or by email at
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 Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on September 18–19, 2017, in Room 630 at VA, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC. On September 18, 2017, the session will begin at 1:00 p.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. On September 19, 2017, the session will begin at 8:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. This meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the medical, psychological, and social needs of older Veterans and evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
The meeting will feature presentations and discussions on VA's geriatrics and extended care programs, aging research activities, updates on VA's employee staff working in the area of geriatrics (to include training, recruitment and retention approaches), VHA strategic planning activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts regarding dementia and program advances in palliative care, and performance and oversight of VA Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide written comments for review by the Committee to Mrs. Alejandra Paulovich, Program Analyst, Geriatrics and Extended Care Services (10P4G), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, or via email at