Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, August 24, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222–5900.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Subsequent to publication, The FAA found that the Wausau VORTAC was inadvertently left in the airspace description in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. The segment that contained the Mosinee outer marker and DANCI locator outer marker, associated with the VORTAC, has been removed due to the decommissioning of these navigation aids and, therefore, removes the need for the Wausau VORTAC. This action makes the correction.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
On page 36080, column 1, on lines 36 and 37, remove the following text:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.
These regulations are effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018.
FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Sarah A. Combs, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2016, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations section 71.1, effective September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11A in full text as proposed rule documents in the
This document incorporates by reference FAA Order 7400.11B, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, in section 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11B, effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11B in full text as proposed rule documents in the
The FAA has determined that this action: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.11B is effective September 15, 2017, through September 15, 2018. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Ironman Triathlon in Augusta, Georgia on 24 September 2017, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Augusta, GA. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701(f), Line No. 3, will be enforced on September 24, 2017 from 6 a.m. until 12 p.m.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Adam White, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 912–652–4353, extension 233, or email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to § 100.701(f), COTP Zone Savannah; Special Local Regulations, Line no. 3, from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. on September 24, 2017 for the Ironman Triathlon. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.701, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Ironman Triathlon which encompasses portions of the Savannah River and its branches. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.100(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.701 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the San Diego Bayfair special local regulations on the waters of Mission Bay, California from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from September 15, 2017, to September 17, 2017. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12, will be enforced from 7 a.m. September 15, 2017, through 6 p.m. September 17, 2017.
If you have questions about this publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Briana Biagas, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone (619) 278–7656, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for the San Diego Bayfair race event in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 12, of that section from 7 a.m. on September 15, 2017 until 6 p.m. September 17, 2017. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the race. The Coast Guard's regulation for recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone identifies the regulated area for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 33 CFR 100.1101. In addition to this document in the
If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Ontario during the Village of Sodus Point Fireworks display on September 2, 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 11 p.m. on September 2, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed 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. The event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. 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 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 (COTP) has determined that a fireworks display 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 display takes place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 2, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; Sodus Point, NY contained within 560-foot radius of: 43°16′33″ N., 076°58′27″ 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 only during the fireworks display. 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 the particular areas are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels
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 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. The portion of the revision that EPA is approving relates to the State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. In particular, the revision adds a definition of “replacement unit” and provides that a replacement unit is a type of existing emissions unit under the definition of “emissions unit.” This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
This direct final rule is effective October 23, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 25, 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–2017–0371 at
Andres Febres of the 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. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at
On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a SIP revision for EPA's approval that includes, among other things, changes to Alabama's PSD permitting regulations as part of the State's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program.
In this document, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of this submittal that make changes to ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335–3–14–.04—“Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)].” Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD regulations at Rule 335–3–14–.04 by adding a definition of “replacement unit” and by modifying the definition of “emissions unit” to expressly include replacement units as existing emissions units. As revised in the May 5, 2017, withdrawal letter discussed in Section III, below, these changes are similar to those made to the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) and (33) in the rule titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Reconsideration”
EPA is not taking action on the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012, submittal regarding ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335–3–10—“Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,” and Chapter 335–3–11—“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.” In the submittal, Alabama acknowledges that these regulations are not part of Alabama's SIP and states that the “revisions to these [regulations] are not proposed to be incorporated into Alabama's SIP.”
On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule revisions to the CAA's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs.
Following publication, EPA received numerous petitions requesting reconsideration of several aspects of the final rule. On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44624), EPA granted reconsideration on six issues, including whether replacement units should be allowed to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test to determine whether installing a replacement unit results in a significant emissions increase. On November 7, 2003, EPA published the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule.
Under Federal regulations, certain activities are not considered to be a physical change or a change in the method of operation at a source, and thus do not trigger NSR review. One category of such activities is routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). On October 27, 2003, EPA published a rule titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion” (hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule).
Shortly after the October 27, 2003 rulemaking, several parties filed petitions for review of the ERP Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of the rule pending resolution of the petitions. A collection of environmental groups, public interest groups, and States, subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration with EPA, requesting that the Agency reconsider certain aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on July 1, 2004.
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision makes changes to the State's PSD permitting regulations by adding a definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying the definition of “emissions unit” at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) to expressly include replacement units as existing emissions units. As of the date of the submittal, these changes were intended to reflect revisions to the Federal regulations regarding replacement units included in the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule and to reflect revisions regarding functionally equivalent components in the ERP Rule, as described in Sections II.A and II.B of this action, above.
The SIP revision initially sought to add a definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) that combined the Federal definition of “replacement unit” with language concerning functionally equivalent units and basic design parameters from the ERP Rule. However, the ERP Rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit following the submittal of Alabama's SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5, 2017, Alabama submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing, among other things, portions of the definition of “replacement unit” form its May 7, 2012, SIP revision that incorporated language from the ERP Rule with the exception of one sentence in subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an example of a “basic design parameter” as it relates to a replacement unit. EPA has evaluated this sentence, and the Agency believes that it is simply an illustrative example and that Alabama's provisions relating to RMRR remain consistent with Federal provisions and the CAA regarding RMRR. Pursuant to the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb)(3) for incorporation into the SIP reads as follows:
Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the criteria listed in subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this section are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be generated from shutting down the existing emissions unit that is replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all permitting requirements for modifications under this rule.
1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning of 40 CFR 60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely takes the place of an existing emissions unit.
2. The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent to the replaced emissions unit.
3. The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters of the process unit. Basic design parameters of a replaced unit shall also include all source specific emission limits and/or monitoring requirements.
4. The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or permanently barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as a practical matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back into operation, it shall constitute a new emissions unit.
In Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g), Alabama revises the definition of “Emissions Unit” by adding a new sentence at subparagraph (g)(2) that expressly includes replacement units as existing emissions units. This sentence references the new definition of “replacement unit” at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is consistent with the Federal definition of the term “replacement unit” at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that adding this change and Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
In this rule, the 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 ADEM Administrative Code Rules 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) and 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb), state effective on May 29, 2012. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via the State's May 5, 2017 withdrawal letter, that modify Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) and add Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This action is limited to the two rule revisions currently before the Agency and does not modify any other PSD rules in Alabama's SIP.
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP 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 adverse 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 October 23, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we 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.
• 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 October 23, 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 this
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
(c) * * *
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
NMFS published a final rule on July 25, 2017, to implement management measures described in Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 37). This notification corrects the coordinate contained in footnote 2 to Table 1 in the regulatory text to be consistent with the same management boundary and coordinate described in other regulations applicable to the snapper-grouper fishery.
This correction notice is effective on August 24, 2017.
Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
On July 25, 2017, NMFS published a final rule in the
As explained in the final rule for Amendment 37, NMFS corrected an error with the footnotes in Table 1 of § 622.1. After the final rule published, NMFS discovered an additional error in one of those footnotes addressed in the final rule for Amendment 37. NMFS determined that a coordinate describing a management boundary for black sea bass and scup in footnote 2 was inaccurate and inconsistent with the same management boundary referenced in subpart I of part 622 of the Code of Federal Regulations. NMFS publishes this notification to correct that mistake. The coordinate in footnote 2 is intended to be “35°15.19′”, not “35°15.9′”.
In the
1. On p. 34594, instruction 2 is corrected to read as follows:
“2. In § 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry for “FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region,” revise the entry for footnote 2, and add footnote 8 to Table 1 to read as follows:”
2. On page 34594, footnote 2 in Table 1 to § 622.1 is corrected to read as follows:
“
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the recreational and commercial sectors for the Florida Keys/East Florida (FLK/EFL) hogfish stock in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the 2017 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS estimates recreational and commercial hogfish landings for the FLK/EFL stock for the 2017 fishing year have reached their respective annual catch limits (ACLs). Therefore, NMFS closes the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico EEZ on August 24, 2017, through the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. This closure is necessary to protect the FLK/EFL hogfish resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, August 24, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Nikhil Mehta, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes hogfish and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The final rule for Amendment 37 to the FMP established two stocks of hogfish with new stock boundaries under the jurisdiction of the Council (82 FR 34584; July 25, 2017). One stock is the Georgia through North Carolina (GA/NC) hogfish stock, which has a southern boundary extending east from the Florida and Georgia state border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The GA/NC stock's management area then extends northward to a line extending east from the North Carolina and Virginia state border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The other stock is the FLK/EFL hogfish stock. The FLK/EFL hogfish stock's management area extends south of 25°09′ N. latitude off the west coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico (near Cape Sable, Florida), east around South Florida, and then north off the east coast of Florida to a line extending east from the Florida/Georgia border to the seaward boundary of the EEZ. The final rule for Amendment 37 also established ACLs and AMs for both stocks of hogfish. The management measures in the final rule for Amendment 37 are effective on August 24, 2017.
The final rule for Amendment 37 established a recreational ACL of 15,689 fish and a commercial ACL of 3,510 lb (1592 kg), round weight, for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock for the 2017 fishing year. In accordance with regulations at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and (ii), the recreational and commercial AMs for the FLK/EFL stock require an in-season closure of the respective sector if that sector's ACL is met or is projected to be met, and NMFS is then required to close the applicable sector by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register.
NMFS has determined that the 2017 recreational and commercial ACLs for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock established by Amendment 37 have already been reached. This temporary rule implements AMs to close the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL hogfish stock for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Accordingly, this AM closes the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic EEZ effective 12:01 a.m. local time, August 24, 2017, until January 1, 2018, the start of the next fishing year. As established in Amendment 37, harvest for the recreational sector reopens on May 1, 2018, as recreational harvest is prohibited January through April and November through December each year. During recreational and commercial closures, the bag and possession limits for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in or from the EEZ are zero.
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and(ii) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and public comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA) finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational and commercial sectors for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the AMs established by Amendment 37 (82 FR 34584, July 25, 2017) and located at 50 CFR 622.193(u)(2)(i) and (ii) have already been subject to notice and public comment. All that remains is to notify the public of the recreational and commercial closures for the FLK/EFL stock of hogfish for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect the FLK/EFL hogfish resource, since time for notice and public comment will allow for continued recreational and commercial harvest and further exceedance of the recreational and commercial ACLs.
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
We are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements under our Animal Welfare Act regulations to promote compliance with the Act, reduce licensing fees, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked, or who has a history of noncompliance, from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. We are soliciting public comment on these topics to help us consider ways to reduce regulatory burden and more efficiently ensure the sustained compliance of licensees with the Act.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Dr. Kay Carter-Corker, Director, National Policy Staff, Animal Care, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3748.
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131
Under the current regulations, an applicant for an initial license is required to submit an application form, an application fee, and an annual license fee to APHIS-Animal Care (9 CFR 2.1(c)), acknowledge receipt of a copy of the regulations and agree to comply with them by signing the application form (9 CFR 2.2(a)), and demonstrate compliance with the AWA regulations and standards before APHIS can issue a license (9 CFR 2.3(a)). Once a licensee receives a license, a licensee renews his or her license by submitting an annual renewal form and license fee (9 CFR 2.1(d)(1)).
Although an applicant for renewal certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that he or she is in compliance with all regulations and standards, the current regulations do not require the applicant to demonstrate compliance before APHIS renews his or her license. The current regulations also do not require a licensee to demonstrate compliance when the licensee makes any subsequent changes to his or her animals or facilities, including noteworthy changes in the number or type of animals used in regulated activity.
In this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, we are soliciting public comment on potential revisions to the licensing requirements to better promote sustained compliance with the AWA, reduce licensing fees and burdens, and strengthen existing safeguards that prevent individuals and businesses who are unfit to hold a license (such as any individual whose license has been suspended or revoked or who has a history of noncompliance) from obtaining a license or working with regulated animals. Potential regulatory changes we are considering include:
• Establishing a firm expiration date for licenses (
• Specifying procedures to ensure licensees have ample time to apply for licenses and demonstrate compliance prior to the expiration of an existing license, and issuing conditional licenses to licensees with histories of compliance should they be in jeopardy of an inadvertent lapse in licensure during the license application process;
• Requiring licensees to affirmatively demonstrate compliance when making noteworthy changes subsequent to the issuance of a license in regard to the number, type, or location of animals used in regulated activities;
• Eliminating the application fee and annual license fee and assessing reasonable fees only for licenses issued (as in the example above, such as every 3–5 years);
• Requiring license applicants to disclose any animal cruelty convictions or other violations of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animals;
• With respect to pre-licensing inspections to assess compliance, reducing from three to two the number of opportunities an applicant has to correct deficiencies and take corrective measures before the applicant forfeits his or her application and fee and must reapply for a license;
• Closing a loophole in the current regulations that allows individuals and businesses, although they do not operate as bona fide exhibitors, to become licensed as such in order to circumvent State laws restricting ownership of exotic and wild animals to AWA-licensed exhibitors;
• Strengthening existing prohibitions to expressly restrict individuals and businesses whose licenses have been suspended or revoked from working for other regulated entities, and prevent individuals with histories of noncompliance (or orders suspending or revoking a license) from applying for new licenses through different individuals or business names; and
• Streamlining the procedures for denying a license application, terminating a license, and summarily suspending a license.
To aid in the development of those potential regulatory changes, we invite data and information from the public regarding potential economic effects, including benefits and costs, on dealers, operators of auction sales, and exhibitors, and potential alternatives to reduce regulatory burdens and more efficiently and consistently ensure sustained compliance of licensees with the AWA. In addition, we invite comments from the public on the following questions:
1. Should we propose to establish a firm expiration date for licenses (such as 3–5 years) and if so, what should that date be and why? Please provide supporting data.
2. What fees would be reasonable to assess for licenses issued? Are the existing license fees (9 CFR 2.6) reasonable, or should they be adjusted to take additional factors into consideration, such as the type of animals used in regulated activities? Please provide data in support of any proposed adjustments to the license fees.
3. In addition to the existing prohibitions on any person whose license has been suspended or revoked from buying, selling, transporting, exhibiting, or delivering for transportation animals during the period of suspension or revocation (9 CFR 2.10(c)), should such persons be prohibited from engaging in other activities involving animals regulated under the AWA, such as working for other AWA-regulated entities or using other individual names or business entities to apply for a license? Please suggest specific activities that should be covered and provide supporting data and information.
4. Do you have any other specific concerns or recommendations for reducing regulatory burdens involving the licensing process or otherwise improving the licensing requirements under the AWA?
This action has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771.
7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK; Clinton Municipal Airport, Clinton, OK; and Elk City Regional Business Airport, Elk City, OK. The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the Sayre co-located VHF omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC) facility, which provided navigation guidance for the instrument procedures to these airports. The VORTAC is being decommissioned as part of the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or 1–800–647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–0618; Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–9 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222–5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2017–0618; Airspace Docket No. 17–ASW–9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 that would:
Establish Class D airspace within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, to replace the airspace designation of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK, and bring the airspace descriptions in line with the requirements of FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters;
Remove Class D airspace at Clinton-Sherman Airport, Clinton-Sherman Airport, OK; and Modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface as follows:
Within a 7.2-mile radius (reduced from an 8.2-mile radius) of Clinton-Sherman Airport, Burns Flat, OK, and remove the Burns Flat VORTAC and extensions to the south and north of the airport from the airspace description;
Correcting the airspace header to Clinton, OK, (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport, OK) to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, remove the extension south of Clinton Regional Airport (formerly Clinton Municipal Airport), add an extension 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport, and update the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and
Within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Elk City Regional Business Airport (formerly Elk City Municipal Airport), Elk City, OK, remove the extension to the northeast of the airport, remove the Elk City RBN from the airspace description, and update the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Sayre VORTAC as part of the VOR MON Program, and to bring the airspace and airspace descriptions into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2L. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 4,500 feet within a 4.7-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of Clinton-Sherman Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Clinton Regional Airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 359° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Elk City Regional Business Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. This action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VHF omnidirectional range (VOR), and cancellation of the VOR approach procedure, and would enhance the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport, as the FAA transitions to performance-based navigation as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action would also update the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–9826, or 1–800–647–5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2017–0145 and Airspace Docket No. 17–AGL–4, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone (817) 222–5900.
The request to decommission the Burbun VOR was requested by the Plans and Program office in the FAA's Central Service Center. The Burbun VOR was one of the VORs on the list to be decommissioned within the VOR Minimum Operating Network published in the
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA–2017- 0145/Airspace Docket No. 17–AGL–4.” 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 notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of Burlington Municipal Airport, Burlington, WI. Airspace redesign is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Burbun VOR, cancellation of the VOR approach and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action would enhance the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for (RNAV) IFR operations at the airport.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Burlington Municipal Airport.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
Request for supplemental comments.
On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that, among other things, proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to require all newly interconnecting large and small generating facilities, both synchronous and non-synchronous, to install and enable primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection. In this document, the Commission seeks supplemental comments related to whether and when electric storage resources should be required to provide primary frequency response, and the costs associated with primary frequency response capabilities for small generating facilities.
Comments are due September 14, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM16–6–000, by any of the following methods:
• Electronic filing through
•
Jomo Richardson (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–6281,
Mark Bennett (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–8524,
1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)
2. Following a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that explored a broad range of issues regarding primary frequency response and the evolving Bulk-Power System,
3. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that the proposed requirements will help ensure adequate primary frequency response capability as the resource mix continues to evolve, with fair and consistent treatment for all types of generating facilities, and will help balancing authorities meet their frequency response obligations under NERC Reliability Standard BAL–003–1.1.
4. The NOPR proposals did not propose provisions specific to electric storage resources. Several commenters raise concerns that, by failing to address electric storage resources' unique technical attributes, the NOPR requirements could pose an unduly discriminatory burden on electric storage resources. The Energy Storage Association (ESA) asserts that the proposed requirements could result in unique, adverse impacts on electric storage resources. Particularly, ESA states that the proposed use of nameplate capacity as the basis for primary frequency response service and the fact that electric storage resources are capable of operating at the full range of their capacity (
5. To address its concerns, ESA requests that the Final Rule: (1) Allow electric storage resources to specify a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response capability as a condition of interconnection; and (2) include inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint that would relieve electric storage resources from the sustained response requirement.
6. In light of these concerns, the Commission seeks additional information to better understand the performance characteristics and limitations of electric storage resources, possible ramifications of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources, and what changes, if any, are needed to address the issues raised by ESA and others. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Some commenters state that certain proposed requirements are not appropriate for electric storage resources, in particular, certain of the proposed settings related to droop (
a. Are there challenges or operational implications (
b. Also, please explain whether and how possible impacts of the proposed requirements on electric storage resources vary by their state of charge, and whether those possible impacts are the same or different for all electric storage technologies. If these impacts vary by the type of electric storage technology, please elaborate.
c. If the proposed operating settings for droop, deadband, and sustained response would cause any operational or other concerns unique to electric storage resources that would justify different operating settings than those proposed in the NOPR, what minimum requirements for droop, deadband, and timely and sustained response might be more appropriate for the effective provision of primary frequency response from electric storage resources? Or are there parameters other than those discussed in the NOPR (
2. Are there risks associated with requiring electric storage resources, which are energy-limited, to provide timely and sustained primary frequency response, such as possible adverse effects on an electric storage resource's ability to fulfill other obligations (
3. Please describe the relationship between electric storage resources being online and the provision of primary frequency response.
a. Are electric storage resources that are always online available on a more frequent basis to provide primary frequency response than generating facilities that start-up and shut-down (
b. Please discuss whether it is possible to “turn off” an electric storage resource's primary frequency response capability (
4. Please explain what is meant by “minimum set point” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated, if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the provision of primary frequency response service? If so, please elaborate.
b. Would the primary frequency response requirements proposed in the NOPR result in electric storage resources that have no such minimum set point providing a greater magnitude of primary frequency response for a given frequency deviation than other generating facilities of equal nameplate capacity that have a minimum set point? Please provide an explanation as to why this is or is not the case.
c. How and in what ways would the implementation of such a minimum set point change an electric storage resource's response to frequency deviations, as compared to other generating facilities that do not implement a minimum set point? As part of this explanation, please explain whether the implementation of a minimum set point would: (1) Limit the provision of primary frequency response for electric storage resources to a megawatt (MW) range (
d. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to establish a minimum set point for the purposes of primary frequency response:
i. How would they determine the appropriate value of the minimum set point for a given electric storage resource? What technical characteristics or economic factors should be considered in establishing a minimum set point for the various types of electric storage resources?
ii. Should the minimum set point be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.
iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements the value of the minimum set point and indicate whether it is
5. Please explain what is meant by “inadequate state of charge” and elaborate on how and by whom it would be defined and determined.
a. Could possible adverse impacts of the proposed primary frequency response requirements on electric storage resources be minimized or eliminated if owners/operators of such resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an explicit operational constraint relieving electric storage resources from providing sustained response when in that “inadequate” state? If so, please elaborate.
b. If owners/operators of electric storage resources or another entity were allowed to define inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint for electric storage resources:
i. How would they determine what level of charge is “inadequate” thus preventing electric storage resources from providing sustained primary frequency response output?
ii. Should the inadequate state of charge parameter be static, or dynamic and subject to change based on technical or other factors? If it is subject to change, please explain the factors that would warrant such changes.
iii. Should owners/operators of electric storage resources be required to specify in their interconnection agreements a parameter for “inadequate state of charge” and indicate whether it is static or dynamic? In what manner should this information be provided to the relevant balancing authority?
6. What impacts, if any, would owners/operators of electric storage resources experience if their resources are not allowed to maintain a specified range of state of charge?
a. Is there a certain range of state of charge (expressed as a percentage of total charge) that would enable an electric storage resource to provide primary frequency response without possible adverse impacts?
b. Would this range be the same for all electric storage resources, or would it depend on the particular technology of a given electric storage resource and/or the duration that the resource could sustain its output?
c. Are there differences in terms of adverse impacts on an electric storage resource depending on whether its state of charge is low (
d. To the extent there are adverse impacts, would they differ for different electric storage technologies? If so, please elaborate.
7. In lieu of (1) establishing a minimum set point for electric storage resources and (2) including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint, could owners/operators of all or certain types of electric storage resources or another entity specify an operating range
a. Would it be possible to base such an operating range on manufacturer specifications and, if so, would establishing such an operating range potentially address concerns about the harm to the resource, degradation of its useful life, or other potential adverse impacts?
b. Would it be possible to specify such an operating range at the time of interconnection and include the operating range in the interconnection agreement? By what means should the operating range be communicated to the relevant balancing authority?
8. Are there other mechanisms or ways to address the concerns raised by ESA and others on the proposed primary frequency response requirements instead of: (1) Establishing a minimum set point and including an inadequate state of charge as an operational constraint; or (2) establishing an operating range as described above.
7. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that small generating facilities be subject to new primary frequency response requirements in the
8. Some commenters raise concerns that small generating facilities could face disproportionate costs to install primary frequency response capability.
9. Other commenters request that the Commission consider a size limitation. In particular, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power), NRECA, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) request the Commission adopt a size limitation for applying the NOPR requirements.
10. To augment the record regarding the ability of small generating facilities to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, and their potential economic impact, the Commission seeks comment on the following questions:
1. Are the costs for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls proportionally comparable to the costs for large generating facilities? If costs are proportionally higher for small generating facilities to install, maintain, and operate governors or equivalent controls, what accounts for these higher costs? Quantify, to the extent possible, any general differences in these costs between small and large generating facilities.
2. If small generating facilities were required to comply with the proposed primary frequency response requirements, do recent technological advances in primary frequency response capability minimize or eliminate possible barriers to entry of small generating facilities? If not, in what specific ways could the proposed requirements be a barrier to entry? Should such negative impacts occur, please discuss means by which the
3. Is an exemption appropriate for all or a subset of small generating facilities based on possible disproportionate cost impacts of installing the capability to provide primary frequency response? If so, please provide specific cost data demonstrating that is the case.
4. Given their increasing market penetration and operational role in the Bulk-Power System, please discuss the extent to which small generating facilities are necessary to ensure adequate primary frequency response.
5. Please discuss whether PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.'s (PJM's) recent changes to its interconnection agreements, which require new large and small non-synchronous generating facilities to install enhanced inverters that include primary frequency response capability,
11. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due September 14, 2017. Comments must refer to Docket No. RM16–6–000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
12. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at
13. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
14. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
15. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
16. From FERC's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
17. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC's Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
By direction of the Commission.
Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is reopening the public comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in the
The comment period for the proposed rule published December 16, 2016 at 81 FR 91556 and extended to August 18, 2017 at 82 FR 22452 is reopened until November 16, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by any of the following methods:
In response to requests from multiple parties, USACE is extending the time for public comments to November 16, 2017. The date listed in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of
Written comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371 at
Andres Febres of the 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. Febres can be reached via telephone at (404) 562–8966 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 the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, which the State of Iowa (the state) submitted to the EPA on May 26, 2016, for attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0416 to
Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551–7016, or by email at
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” and “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.
On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary SO
On March 18, 2016, the EPA published an action that the State of Iowa failed to submit the required SO
The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that nonattainment SIPs must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides a review of the state's plan with respect to these requirements, and describes the EPA's proposed action on the plan.
Nonattainment SIPs must meet the applicable requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 172, 191 and 192. The EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIPs are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural requirements and control strategy requirements residing at subparts F and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIPs, in a document entitled the “General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” published at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) (General Preamble). Among other things, the General Preamble addressed SO
In order for the EPA to fully approve a SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA sections 110, 172 and 191–192 and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, the SIP for the affected area needs to demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements have been met. Under CAA sections 110(l) and 193, the EPA may not approve a SIP that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment and RFP, or any other applicable requirement, and no requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order, settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant, may be modified in any manner unless it insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.
CAA section 172(c)(1) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted plan provides for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, replicability, and accountability. General Preamble, at 13567–68. SO
The EPA's April 2014 guidance recommends that the emission limits be expressed as short-term average limits (
The April 2014 guidance provides an extensive discussion of the EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 SO
As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO
For plans for SO
The EPA recognizes that some sources 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. The EPA also acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow short periods with emissions above the “critical emissions value,” which, if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high SO
Second, from a more theoretical perspective, the 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 EPA's April 2014 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 section 110(a)(1) and 172(c)(1) for state implementation plans to “provide for attainment” of the NAAQS. For SO
The April 2014 guidance offers specific recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour emission limit that would provide for attainment (
Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are described in appendix A of the 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 “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr SO
The following discussion evaluates various features of the modeling that Iowa used in its attainment demonstration.
Iowa's attainment demonstration used the most current version of AERMOD available during each phase of its analysis (
Modeling for the Muscatine 1-hr SO
The state utilized information from the technical support document (TSD) it submitted to EPA during the nonattainment boundary recommendations to inform which sources needed to be included in its nonattainment SIP modeling.
As described in the state's nonattainment SIP, GPC is the largest source of SO
MPW is a municipal electric generating station. MPW produces steam through the combustion of fossil fuels, generally coal, and uses the steam to produce electricity. The largest sources of SO
Monsanto is a manufacturer and formulator of herbicides for agricultural use and also produces intermediates for herbicide manufacturing and formulation. A coal-fired boiler (Boiler #8) used for the production of on-site heat and power is the largest SO
The state excluded four facilities located within the nonattainment area from the its nonattainment SIP modeling analysis: HNI Corporation—North Campus (HNI North); H.J. Heinz, L.P. (H.J. Heinz); Union Tank Car Co. (Union Tank); and HNI Corporation—Central Campus (HNI Central). As shown in the state's nonattainment SIP, the cumulative actual emissions from these sources is relatively low; the sources emitted a combined 0.14 tons of SO
The state also evaluated several major sources of SO
All included emission units were modeled using their actual stack parameters and site layout. There were no stacks above formula GEP (good engineering practice) height. There were stacks greater than 65 meters at GPC, MPW, and LGS and each of those stacks were adjacent to tall buildings making the formula height taller than the actual stack height. Therefore, each of those stacks were modeled at their actual stack heights.
Per EPA's April 2014 guidance, the use of allowable emissions and the modeling of intermittent emissions (for sources such as emergency generators and startup/shutdown emissions), for the purpose of modeling for SO
The state's nonattainment SIP acknowledges that, although SO
The state asserts that nonpoint (area) SO
Section 172(c)(6) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emission rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of such standard in such area by the applicable attainment date.
Part of the review of state's attainment plan must address the use of these limits, both with respect to the general suitability of using such limits for the purpose of meeting the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(6) with respect to whether the particular limits included in the plan have been suitably demonstrated to provide for attainment. The first subsection that follows addresses the enforceability of the limits in the plan, and the second subsection that follows addresses in the limits in particular the longer term average limits (
As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and 75 FR 35520, emission limitations, control measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the state and EPA. Working with GPC, MPW, and Monsanto the state developed an implementable control strategy designed to ensure expeditious attainment of the 1-hr SO
As noted in the state's May 26, 2016, submittal letter, Iowa was included in the agency's
EPA is proposing to determine that these control measures, and the permits that contain them, satisfy CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) requirements and 75 FR 35520. It should be noted that the emission limit established for MPW in the control strategy of the state's nonattainment plan relies on a pound/hour (lb/hr) limit expressed an averaging time (
As discussed in the April 2014 guidance, and in section III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer Term Averaging in this preamble, EPA has recommended that averaging times in SIP emission limits should not exceed the applicable NAAQS averaging time, in this case 1-hour, however, EPA has acknowledged that a 1-hr emission rate limit may be difficult to achieve at some facilities. As such EPA provided guidance for establishing longer term averaging limits based on a supportable downward adjustment of the critical emissions value. The critical emissions value is the 1-hr averaged emission rate that dispersion modeling predicts would attain the NAAQS.
The control strategy included in the state's nonattainment SIP allows MPW to meet a compliance formula based on a 21-day averaging period across multiple units running alone or in combination. The formula incorporates a weighting function derived from the modeling results of the individual units (Units 7, 8 and 9), and downward adjustments of the critical emissions values. A separate downward adjustment was calculated for each unit using five years of unit-specific CEMS data, 2010–2014; the state considered this data to be representative of the boilers' operations into the future, and reflect the fact that each unit is emitting from a separate stack. The 1-hour emissions value of 1,153 lbs/hr used in the formula incorporates the adjustment to a longer term limit according to the ratio of the 99th percentile 21-day average emission rate to the 99th percentile 1-hr emission rates from the CEMS data. Because the 1,153 lbs/hr value was derived from all 3 units operating together additional model runs were needed to ensure the formula was protective under other operating scenarios, with combinations of one or two units operating. The formula provides flexibility for MPW to run their three coal units alone or in combination in such a way that the NAAQS will be protected at all times. Because the units have different dispersion characteristics, the formula weighs each unit's individual emissions such that the critical modeled value in the formula is always protected.
To determine the longer term average limit, the state determined the individual variability of each unit from the 2010–2014 CEMS data as described above. The variability value ratios of the 99th percentile 21-day average and 99th percentile hourly values were 0.71, 0.90, 0.63 for the three units respectively. The state determined a critical value for each of these units individually using their respective variability and stack characteristics. In the first modeling scenario (the “All” run) the state determined the hourly critical values for Units 7,8,9 as 250 lbs/hr, 1000 lbs/hr, and 120 lbs/hr respectively, so 1,370 lbs/hr total from the 3 units. Applying the individual unit variability, the equivalent 21 day limits would be 177.5 lbs/hr, 900.0 lbs/hr, and 75.6 lbs/hr respectively which when added together is 1,153 lbs/hr, the value that becomes the basis of the compliance formula. The state then modeled 7 combinations of emissions scenarios using the individual unit stack characteristics that all demonstrated compliance with the NAAQS and accounted for individual variability of each unit. These scenarios consisted of 3 model runs where the individual units were operating alone and 4 model runs with various combinations of units operating. Each run had its own hourly critical modeled value demonstrating compliance and these 7 runs formed the basis for the weights in the formula to ensure 1,153 lbs/hr was always protective of all the individual critical values modeled. This provided modeled emission rates such that a weighted formula could be derived such that any combination of emissions from the three individual units would always be at or below the value of 1,153 lbs/hr as expressed in the formula. Because the stacks have different dispersion characteristics and the modeled scenarios have different critical emission values, the formula derived contains different weights or multipliers for each unit's actual hourly emissions, but the weights are such that no individual unit operating alone or a combination of units will cause a NAAQS violation as long as the formula criteria as expressed in the permit are
“The owner or operator shall maintain a file of computations to show the total hourly emission level for SO
Unit 7 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 7
Unit 8 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 8
Unit 9 = 24-hour average sulfur dioxide emission rate, lb/hr, for Unit 9.
Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that the 21-day average limit for MPW provides a suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for this source. The state has used a suitable data base in an appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, yielding an emission limit formula that has comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 21-day average limit allows occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limit compensates by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. For reasons described above and explained in more detail in EPA's April 2014 guidance, 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 state's plan, the EPA finds that the 21-day average limit formula for MPW in combination with other limitations in the state's plan, will provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
The state reviewed its statewide SO
The state determined that the Davenport SO
The state utilized temporally varying background concentrations by hour and season from the Davenport SO
The state also averaged the 2011–2013 design values for Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Des Moines, and Lake Sugema to determine if that number,
The modeling analysis was conducted in two phases. The first phase (Phase 1) of the analysis was a screening analysis to determine the sources that needed to be included in the control strategy analysis. The second phase (Phase 2) of the analysis was used to develop the control strategy and included all significant sources identified in Phase 1.
This phase was accomplished by modeling actual emissions from GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS and allowable emissions from SSAB and Gerdau and then determining the percentage of predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area to which each facility significantly contributed. In this way, the state determined that GPC contributed to 100 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, MPW contributed to approximately 25 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, Monsanto contributed to approximately 1 percent of the NAAQS exceedances, and LGS contributed to approximately 5 percent of the NAAQS exceedances. Both SSAB and Gerdau each modeled less than a 1 percent contribution to the NAAQS exceedance days within the nonattainment area. Therefore, only GPC, MPW, Monsanto and LGS were determined to have enough potential contribution to NAAQS exceedances to be evaluated further.
The state then further subdivided the sources by classifying the significant contributors as either a primary or a secondary contributor. If the facility's significant contribution to the predicted NAAQS exceedance was greater than or equal to half of the total concentration (minus background) it was considered a primary contributor. If the facility's contribution was less than half of the total concentration, but still more than the Significant Impact Level (SIL) it was considered a secondary contributor.
GPC was identified as a primary contributor to all predicted NAAQS exceedances within the nonattainment area. GPC's max potential contribution was estimated as 3,180 µg/m
MPW, Monsanto and LGS were identified as secondary contributors. MPW's max potential contribution was estimated as 107 µg/m
Sources identified in Phase 1 (GPC, MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) as being significant contributors were modeled at their maximum permitted allowable emission rates. Using the process summarized below, more restrictive maximum permitted emission rates were developed where necessary to ensure modeled attainment.
To start its Phase 2 analysis, the state provided GPC with a model input file that included its emission units as well as the exceedance receptors to which it contributed. The state's nonattainment SIP submittal indicates that GPC reviewed the input data for accuracy and then mitigated all modeled exceedances caused by the GPC facility alone.
The remaining facilities (MPW, Monsanto, and LGS) were then added to the analysis with their maximum permitted allowable emission rates and the cumulative impacts were determined across the entire nonattainment area. According to the state's nonattainment SIP submittal, the remaining predicted exceedances were then discussed with Monsanto and MPW. As a result of those discussions, additional control measures were developed for those facilities and are incorporated in construction permits submitted as part of the SIP revision. See section V.B. in this preamble for more information regarding the control measures.
Monsanto proposed to decrease the emission rate for Boiler 8 at its facility to mitigate exceedances just north of its property. MPW proposed multiple model scenarios with combined operation of Units 7, 8, and 9. Regardless of the operational scenario, the unit/units were modeled at an equation cap of 1,153 lb/hr SO
These results indicate that the controls established in the construction permits for MPW, GPC and Monsanto result in attainment of the NAAQS, and as such, additional controls were not necessary for LGS in order for the area to attain. EPA agrees with the state's determination that its control strategy analysis results in modeled concentrations throughout the nonattainment area that are at or below 75 ppb/196.4 ug/m
Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in such area, including such periodic revisions as the Administrator may determine necessary to assure that the requirements of this part are met. Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan expressly identify and quantify the emissions, if any, of any such pollutant or pollutants which will be allowed, in accordance with section 703(a)(1)(B) of the CAA, from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in each such area. The plan shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the emissions quantified for this purpose will be consistent with the achievement of reasonable further progress and will not interfere with attainment of the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standard by the applicable attainment date.
The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses that enable states to: (1) estimate the degree to which different sources within a nonattainment area contribute to violations within the affected area; and (2) assess the expected improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area due to the adoption and implementation of control measures. As noted above, the state must develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO
The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to evaluate emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy and to assess reasonable further progress requirements. The state's nonattainment SIP noted that, at the time, the most recent and available triennial inventory year was 2011 and the stated found that it served as a suitable base year. Table 2 provides the 2011 SO
Although not part of the state's discussion of its 2011 baseline emissions inventory, the state's nonattainment SIP also provides 2013 SO
As already noted, the state's nonattainment SIP must identify and quantify the emissions which will be allowed from the construction and operation of major new or modified stationary sources in the area (see CAA § 172(c)(4)). The state must demonstrate that such emissions will be consistent with RFP requirements and will not interfere with attainment of the 1-hr SO
According to EPA's April 2014 SO
The EPA is proposing to determine that the state has met the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(4).
CAA § 172(c)(1) requires that the state's nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of RACT) and shall provide for attainment of the NAAQS. The state's plan for attaining the 1-hour SO
To ensure the SO
While the scrubber installations will not be completed by January 1, 2017, the desired target date discussed in EPA's April 2014 guidance, the scrubbers will be operational as expeditiously as practicable. Based on permitted requirements, three of the six new scrubbers must be in operation no later than August 30, 2017, with the final scrubber operational by March 31, 2018. The installation timetable accommodates factors such as demolition and construction schedules, structural modifications, ductwork design, and the addition of scrubber water treatment capacity. The state asserts in its nonattainment plan that the scrubber installation timeline will not delay or prevent timely attainment of the 1-hr SO
It should also be noted that, on July 14, 2015, GPC converted all of its coal-fired boilers to natural gas. The state estimates that the fuel switch will result in a 96 percent reduction in the facility's total SO
MPW is subject to several Federal programs that directly or indirectly affect SO
The control strategy for MPW also addresses emission reductions from EP60 (Auxiliary Boiler). A permit issued to the facility in 2013, Permit No. 13–A–152, for the Auxiliary Boiler required that SO
The control measures developed for Monsanto, described in table 4–3 of the state's nonattainment SIP, establish lower emission limits on two sources—EP–195 (Boiler #8) and EP–234 (CAC Process Flare). The Boiler #8 control strategy includes a more stringent SO
The control strategy for the CAC Process Flare includes new SO
The state has determined that these measures suffice to provide for attainment the attainment date, August 5, 2018. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the state has satisfied the requirement in CAA § 172(c)(1) to adopt and submit all RACM as needed to attain the standards as expeditiously as practicable.
Section 172(c)(5) requires that the state's nonattainment plan provisions shall require permits for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area, in accordance with section CAA § 173. EPA approved the state's nonattainment new source review rules on May 15, 2014 (79 FR 27763). These rules provide for appropriate new source review for SO
Section 172(c)(2) requires that nonattainment plans include provisions addressing reasonable further progress (RFP). Reasonable further progress is defined in CAA § 171(1) as: “. . .
As discussed in EPA's April 2014 guidance, this definition is most appropriate for pollutants that are emitted by numerous and diverse sources, where the relationship between any individual source and overall air quality is not explicitly quantified, and where NAAQS attainment requires inventory-wide emissions reductions. The SO
As previously noted in section V.B. RACT/RACM, in this preamble, the SO
The state asserts that this plan requires that affected sources implement appropriate control measures as expeditiously as practicable in order to ensure attainment of the standard by the applicable attainment date. The state concluded that its plan therefore provides for RFP in accordance with the approach to RFP described in EPA's guidance. EPA concurs and proposes to conclude that the plan provides for RFP as required by CAA § 172(c)(2).
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires that the state's nonattainment plan provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality standard by the attainment date applicable under this part. Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the State or the Administrator.
EPA's April 2014 guidance describes special features of SO
The state's nonattainment SIP provides that, after full implementation of the control strategy, contingency measures will be triggered if monitored ambient air quality records 1-hr SO
EPA proposes to approve the state's plan for meeting the contingency measure requirement of CAA § 172(c)(9).
Section 172(c)(7) of the CAA requires nonattainment SIPs to meet the applicable provisions of CAA § 110(a)(2). While the provisions of 110(a)(2) address various topics, EPA's past determinations suggest that only the § 110(a)(2) criteria which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are relevant to § 172(c)(7). This nonattainment SIP submittal satisfies all applicable CAA § 110(a)(2) criteria, as evidenced by the state's nonattainment new source review program which addresses 110(a)(2)(I), the included control strategy, and the associated emissions limits which are relevant to 110(a)(2)(A). In addition, on July 26, 2013, Iowa submitted to EPA an infrastructure SIP to demonstrate that the state has the necessary plans, programs, and statutory authority to implement the requirements of section 110 of the CAA as they pertain to the 2010 1-hr SO
Section 172(c)(8) of the CAA states that upon application by any state, the Administrator may allow the use of equivalent modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures, unless the Administrator determines that the proposed techniques are, in the aggregate, less effective than the methods specified by the Administrator.
The state's nonattainment SIP indicates that it followed existing regulations, guidance, and standard practices when conducting modeling, preparing the emissions inventories, and implementing its planning procedures. Therefore, the state did not use or request approval of alternative or equivalent techniques as allowed under of the CAA and the EPA is proposing to conclude that the state's nonattainment SIP meets the requirements of CAA § 172(c)(8).
The EPA is proposing to approve the nonattainment SIP submission, which the state submitted to EPA on May 26, 2016, for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO
The EPA has determined that the state's nonattainment plan meets applicable requirements of the section 172 of the CAA (107(c)(1) through (9). EPA's analysis is discussed in this proposed rulemaking.
The EPA is taking public comments for thirty days following the publication of this proposed action in the
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 the Iowa Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, 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.
Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For 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 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 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The additions read as follows:
(d)* * *
(e)* * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On October 8, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Manufacture of Amino/Phenolic Resins (APR). Subsequently, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. The EPA is reconsidering and requesting public comment on issues related to the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for continuous process vents (CPVs) at existing affected sources. The EPA is proposing to revise the MACT standard for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources based on hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions test data for back-end CPVs at existing sources for this source category submitted by petitioners. The EPA is also soliciting comments regarding the need to revise the standard for front-end CPVs at existing sources, and to extend the compliance date for the proposed revised emission limit for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Additionally, the EPA is proposing requirements for storage vessels at new and existing sources during periods when an emission control system used to control vents on fixed roof tanks is undergoing planned routine maintenance. The EPA is seeking comments only on the four issues specifically addressed in this notice: proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, whether the EPA should modify the front-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, whether the EPA should extend the compliance date for the proposed revised back-end CPV MACT standards for existing sources, and the proposed work practice standards for storage vessels during planned routine maintenance of emission control systems. In this rulemaking, the EPA is not reopening or requesting comment on any other aspects of the 2014 final amendments to the NESHAP for the Manufacture of APR, including other issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the 2014 rule. The EPA estimates this proposal, if
For questions about this proposed action, please contact Mr. Art Diem, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143–01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541–1185; fax number: (919) 541–0246; email address:
The
The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).
Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include, but are not limited to, facilities having a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 325211. Facilities with this NAICS code are described as plastics material and resin manufacturing establishments, which includes facilities engaged in manufacturing amino resins and phenolic resins, as well as other plastic and resin types.
To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1400 of subpart OOO. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of the NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet. A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the proposed changes in this action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this proposed action at:
On October 8, 2014, the EPA completed the residual risk and technology review (RTR) of the January 20, 2000, APR MACT standards (65 FR 3276), and published its final rule amending the NESHAP for the APR Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO. That action also amended the NESHAP for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production source category and the Polycarbonate Production source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY (79 FR 60898). The 2014 final rule established MACT standards for the first time for CPVs at existing affected sources in the APR Production source category. The 2014 final rule also removed exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction; clarified provisions pertaining to open-ended valves and lines; added monitoring requirements for pressure relief devices (PRDs); and added requirements for electronic reporting of performance test results.
The October 2014 amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO, promulgated emissions limits for previously unregulated HAP emissions from CPVs at existing affected sources, without distinguishing between back-end and front-end CPVs. The standard of 0.95 kilograms of organic HAP per megagram (1.9 pounds (lb) of total organic HAP per ton) of resin produced is codified at 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3) and currently applies to existing affected source back-end and front-end CPVs.
Following promulgation of the October 8, 2014, final rule, the EPA received three petitions for reconsideration pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA. The petitions were submitted by the Sierra Club, Tembec BTLSR (“Tembec”), and Georgia-Pacific LLC (“Georgia-Pacific”). The petitions are available for review in the rulemaking docket (see Docket Document ID Nos. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0077, EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0076, and EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0072, respectively). On March 27, 2015, the EPA issued letters to the petitioners granting reconsideration of the final rule to address at least the following petitioners' claims: that the public was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis, supporting data and resulting emission standards for CPVs at existing sources; and that the requirements associated with emissions from PRDs should be reconsidered.
The Agency is now proposing revised emissions standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources and is proposing alternative work practice standards for storage vessels during periods of planned routine maintenance of emission control systems on fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR production sources. The EPA is requesting public comments on these proposed standards. The EPA is also asking for comments on whether it is necessary to establish a new compliance date for the proposed revised back-end CPV limits at existing sources (if they are promulgated), and on whether revisions are needed to the existing source CPV limits as they apply to front-end CPVs. At this time, the EPA is not proposing any actions pertaining to its grant of reconsideration on the PRD issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration. The EPA intends to address those issues separately in a future action and is not requesting or accepting comment on issues related to PRDs.
During the review of the APR NESHAP, the EPA determined that there were no applicable MACT standards for CPVs located at existing affected sources, and, therefore, in the January 9, 2014 (79 FR 1676), RTR proposal for the category, the EPA proposed first-time MACT standards, based on the MACT floor, for those CPVs as follows:
• Reduce organic HAP by 85 percent or more; or
• Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv) when using a combustion control device; or
• Limit the concentration of organic HAP to 50 ppmv when using a non-combustion control device.
During the comment period on the proposal, commenters provided the EPA with information showing that, rather than the two existing affected sources in the category with CPVs (specifically, CPVs on resin spray dryers) that the EPA had identified at proposal, there are four existing affected sources with a total of six CPVs (all on resin spray dryers). In addition, commenters stated that the EPA should calculate uncontrolled production-based emission rates based on 5 years of production, taking variability in emissions between resin types into account. Commenters provided the EPA with HAP emissions data and resin production data for the previous 5 years during the comment period.
The EPA considered the additional data submitted during the comment period in calculating the MACT floor, and determined that it was appropriate to finalize a production-based limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for CPVs at existing affected sources (see 40 CFR 63.1405(a)(3)). The EPA discussed the determination of the MACT floor in a memorandum available in the rulemaking docket (Docket Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0053). The final rule was promulgated on October 8, 2014 (79 FR 60898).
Petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific each own resin spray dryers (back-end CPVs) regulated by the NESHAP for existing affected sources. The back-end CPVs are currently subject to the finalized limit of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. Tembec's and Georgia-Pacific's petitions claim they did not have an opportunity to comment on the MACT floor analysis and emissions standard in the final rule. While they stated in the petitions that they believe a production-based limit is appropriate, they claimed they did not get an opportunity to comment on how the EPA would use the data they provided in analyses conducted to determine the MACT floor level of control.
The Tembec and Georgia-Pacific petitions stated that the production-based emissions limit in the 2014 final rule of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced was not achievable for back-end CPVs, and they expressed concern over the data and calculation methodology used to set the HAP emissions standard for CPVs at existing affected sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that even though its back-end CPVs are identified as the best-performing units, these units do not meet the 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced standard for existing source CPVs.
Tembec and Georgia-Pacific further stated that the emissions data the EPA used to represent Tembec's back-end CPVs were incomplete. According to Tembec and Georgia-Pacific, Tembec's back-end CPV HAP emissions data used in the final rule MACT floor analysis do not account for all HAP emitted, including methanol and formaldehyde. Therefore, petitioners stated that the EPA underestimated the total HAP emissions from these back-end CPVs, resulting in an unreasonably stringent production-based total HAP emissions standard for existing affected sources.
Georgia-Pacific stated in its petition that the EPA made three errors in calculating the production-based HAP limits for CPVs at existing affected sources. First, the petitioner claimed that the promulgated emissions standard does not adequately account for variability in emissions from back-end CPVs. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the emission rate for each CPV by dividing the 5-year total emissions by the 5-year total amount of resin produced by the corresponding resin unit. The petitioner stated that to account for short-term variability, the EPA should have based the standard on the maximum 1-year production-based HAP emissions rate for each CPV. Georgia-Pacific also stated that another approach the EPA could have used to account for variability in the data when calculating the production-based HAP emissions limit is the application of a 99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL). Second, Georgia-Pacific disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of “average” as the median rather than the arithmetic mean of the production-based HAP emissions, although it acknowledged the EPA's long-standing interpretation that “average” could mean arithmetic mean, median, or mode. The petitioner stated that using the arithmetic mean would better reflect the performance of Georgia-Pacific's back-end CPVs, whereas the median produced an emissions limit that is not representative of two of the five best-performing back-end CPVs (with the noted two being Georgia-Pacific CPVs). Third, Georgia-Pacific stated that the EPA's emissions calculations do not account for a change in particulate control technology for one of Tembec's back-end CPVs that occurred prior to the 2014 final rule. Georgia-Pacific asserted that HAP emissions from this CPV are now higher with the change in particulate control technology, and the EPA should not have used data from a period with the previous control technology in place when determining production-based HAP emissions from the five best-performing CPVs at existing affected sources.
Georgia-Pacific also suggested in its petition for reconsideration that the EPA should explore subcategorizing the existing source CPVs between those at Tembec and those at Georgia-Pacific to account for fundamental differences in
Tembec stated in its petition that the EPA did not consider information Tembec submitted to the EPA in the development of the MACT standard for back-end CPVs at existing sources. Specifically, Tembec stated that 2006 engineering test data for one of its CPVs were submitted to the EPA and could have been used to better estimate the HAP emissions from its three CPVs. Tembec also stated that it supports the Georgia-Pacific petition.
In a comment letter from Georgia-Pacific dated March 10, 2014 (Docket Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0046), on the January 9, 2014, proposal, Georgia Pacific identified an additional CPV at its Crossett, Arkansas, facility. This newly identified CPV is not on the resin spray dryers. Whereas the resin spray dryers are on the back-end of the resin manufacturing process, this additional CPV is associated with a reactor used to produce urea-formaldehyde concentrate (UFC), which is located in the front-end of the resin manufacturing process, ahead of the resin spray dryers. Due to a lack of reliable emissions data for this CPV at the time of the 2014 final rule, the EPA did not include emissions from this CPV when it set the MACT floor for CPVs. The Sierra Club raised concerns in its petition for reconsideration regarding the exclusion of HAP emissions data from that front-end CPV, stating that the EPA did not adequately explain why the UFC CPV HAP emissions data were not included in the analysis to calculate the MACT floor for CPVs and asserting that the EPA must include all existing sources in the MACT floor analysis. Sierra Club argued that if the EPA had included Georgia-Pacific's UFC front-end CPV, the HAP emissions standard for CPVs would have been more stringent.
Sierra Club asserted in its petition that all the CPVs are in the same source category and that the EPA cannot subcategorize based on the controls that are in place. Sierra Club further noted that although the EPA stated that the HAP emissions data from this front-end CPV were not reliable, such a statement is insufficient to explain ignoring the HAP emissions from this CPV when setting the MACT standard for CPVs. Lastly, Sierra Club stated that excluding the UFC front-end CPV in the MACT floor analysis because its HAP emissions are not responsible for driving risks is not a relevant reason for such an exclusion.
Following the EPA's issuance of the March 27, 2015, letters granting reconsideration on petitioners' issues pertaining to CPVs, petitioners Tembec and Georgia-Pacific conducted HAP emissions testing on the back-end CPVs located on their resin dryers at their four existing affected sources. The data from that testing are discussed in section III.A of this preamble.
Georgia-Pacific and Tembec conducted HAP emissions testing in April 2015 and June 2015 on all six back-end CPVs located on their resin spray dryers, and they submitted the results of that testing to the EPA. Georgia-Pacific separately tested emissions during production of three types of resins at its Conway, North Carolina, facility; two types of resins at the Taylorsville, Mississippi, facility; and one type of resin at the Crossett, Arkansas, facility. Tembec tested emissions from one spray dryer CPV while producing one type of resin and tested emissions during production of two types of resins from the other two resin spray dryer CPVs. The companies followed a testing protocol approved in advance by the EPA, and both companies conducted six 1-hour runs of the back-end CPVs on each resin spray dryer, where possible, yielding a total of 64 runs. The test data indicate that the major HAP present were methanol and formaldehyde. Complete information on the spray dryer back-end CPV exhaust emission testing, including process and operation information, testing protocol and methodology, quality assurance/quality control, and detailed test results are available in the rulemaking docket.
We performed a MACT floor analysis for back-end CPVs using the 2015 test data provided by Georgia-Pacific and Tembec. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, CAA section 112(d)(3) specifies that the emissions limits cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). Since we have identified six existing source dryers in the APR source category, we determined the MACT floor-level of control based on the best-performing five sources. The MACT floor analysis involved determining the UPL emission rate for each dryer CPV, based on the emissions test results for the resin type generating the highest HAP emissions (where multiple resin types were tested). This UPL value takes into account production variability and estimates the upper bound of future values, based on present or past samples. The resulting UPL emission rate values for the six dryers were ranked, and the five lowest values were averaged to produce the MACT floor value.
The EPA considered the petitioner's claim that the arithmetic average rather than the median value should be used in determining the MACT floor. Given the distribution of the data from these sources, the EPA interprets the arithmetic mean to be the better interpretation of “average” for this set of data. If the distribution of the emission rates from each of the dryers had extreme variation or extreme skewness, then the median might be a better indicator of the central tendency or average of the data set. However, given that the data set consists of only five values (
The EPA also considered how to best account for variability in emissions rates in the MACT floor determination. As each of these sources may produce multiple types (or recipes) of APR (without restriction and without needing any physical modification to the sources), to establish a standard that represents the emissions limit achieved in practice by the best-performing sources, our calculations of the MACT floor are based on the resin resulting in the highest HAP emissions at each of the best-performing sources and the calculated UPL emission rate for production of that highest-HAP emission generating resin at each dryer. In determining the MACT floor for existing sources, the EPA may exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available data,
The EPA explored Georgia-Pacific's request in its petition regarding subcategorizing the dryer standards based on dryer size and/or type of resin produced. However, we found no compelling dryer size threshold nor resin type attribution that would provide a suitable rationale for subcategorization of a MACT floor for a back-end CPV standard.
When establishing an emission standard pursuant to section 112(d) of the CAA, the EPA also determines whether to control emissions to a more stringent level “beyond-the-floor,” after considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements of such more stringent control. As part of the beyond-the-floor analysis for existing source back-end CPVs, control options that are more stringent than the MACT floor were considered. We identified one such option for back-end CPVs at existing sources, a 98-percent emissions reduction requirement. For this option, we assumed that regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs) would need to be used to achieve this control level at all existing APR sources with back-end CPVs. While we project that two facilities would already need to install RTOs on their back-end CPVs to meet the proposed revised MACT floor emissions limit, for this beyond-the-floor analysis, we evaluated the potential additional installation of RTOs at the other two facilities—one facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPV on one resin spray dryer and the other facility would install an RTO to control the back-end CPVs on three resin spray dryers.
Table 1 presents the impacts for the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor options evaluated. Since we are not aware that any of the four facilities have installed controls to comply with the CPV requirements in the 2014 final rule, and since we are aware that at least three of the facilities have obtained an additional year to comply from their permitting authorities pursuant to 40 CFR 63.6(i), we believe it is appropriate to compare the impacts of the MACT floor and the beyond-the-floor option identified to the 2000 rule compliance baseline. In addition, as explained previously, because the data used to set the production-based HAP emissions limit in the 2014 final rule did not account for all HAP, the cost and emissions impacts determined at the time the EPA issued the 2014 final rule would not be an appropriate basis of comparison. However, we note that using the more complete HAP emissions data now available, the cost and emissions impacts of the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs would be approximately the same as the cost and emissions impacts of the beyond-the-floor option for back-end CPVs presented in Table 1 because we now project that all four facilities would need to install RTOs to comply with the 2014 final rule for back-end CPVs. More information on how the capital and annualized costs and costs per ton were calculated is available in the memorandum titled “National Impacts Associated with Proposed Existing Source Standards for CPVs and Storage Tanks in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category,” available in the rulemaking docket.
Essentially, the beyond-the-floor option reflects a doubling of capital and annualized costs compared to the MACT floor option, while obtaining an additional HAP reduction of only 31-percent beyond the MACT floor option. Based on this analysis, we do not consider the beyond-the-floor option to be cost effective. Therefore, we are not proposing any beyond-the-floor standards. Instead, we are proposing to establish production-based HAP emission limits for back-end CPVs at existing APR production sources, at the level we have now determined is the correct MACT floor (
Facilities in the APR Production source category produce a wide variety of resin recipes as needed to meet the specifications of various products in which these resins are used. As a result, the characteristics of the resins passing through the dryers where the back-end CPVs are located can vary at a facility. In order to ensure that APR sources monitor operating parameters at a level that ensures continuous compliance with the proposed MACT standards for back-end CPVs under any and all operating conditions, we are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.1413 to require sources to conduct the performance testing using the resin
In the risk assessment for the 2014 final rule, we determined that the APR MACT standards promulgated in January 2000 provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health (including the then-uncontrolled emissions from CPVs at existing sources). See Residual Risk Assessment for the Amino/Phenolic Resins Production Source Category, Docket Document ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133–0065. Although the data set used to establish the MACT production-based emission limits for CPVs at existing sources in the 2014 final rule did not include data on all HAP, the risk assessment modeling input files for the 2014 final rule show that emissions of all HAP, including methanol and formaldehyde, from the CPVs at the existing sources were accounted for, except for the non-reactor front-end CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility. At the INEOS Melamines facility, the 2014 risk modeling estimates a maximum individual risk of 0.4-in-1 million attributable to the APR source at the INEOS facility, with the risk driver identified as formaldehyde, and the risk modeling input files include 0.375 tons per year of formaldehyde emissions. The information collected from INEOS regarding its non-reactor front-end CPV indicates annual emissions of formaldehyde at less than 0.03 tons per year. Given the low risk estimate for the facility, we consider this small increase in emissions to be insignificant, and the estimated facility risk would be about the same (less than 1-in-1 million). Thus, we would not anticipate the inclusion of a revised emissions estimate for the INEOS facility would change the 2014 risk assessment results for the facility or the APR Production source category, and we have determined that additional quantitative risk analyses are not necessary.
We are soliciting comments on whether existing facilities would need additional time to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV standards, if the revisions to those standards are promulgated. The current compliance date in the 2014 final rule is October 9, 2017. The APR NESHAP at 40 CFR 63.1401(d) provides the opportunity for existing facilities, on a case-by-case basis, to request an extension from their permitting authorities for up to 1 additional year to comply, if necessary, to install controls to meet a standard. We anticipate that two existing facilities would need to install control devices to comply with the proposed revised back-end CPV emissions standards. Industry has indicated that at least 18 months would be needed to install controls, once the proposed rule is finalized, and a 1-year extension of the October 9, 2017, compliance date, if granted, would require compliance in less than 18 months from any promulgation date of the revised back-end CPV standards (given the date of this proposal). We are soliciting comments on whether to maintain the current compliance date, anticipating that case-by-case extension requests may be made, or if the compliance date should be established for another date. If it is appropriate to establish a different compliance date, we are soliciting comments on an appropriate date, such as a date 18 months after promulgation of the revised standards, the date 18 months beyond the original October 9, 2017, compliance date, or some other date.
In the APR Production source category, CPVs are found in both the back-end and front-end of the resins production process. Back-end CPVs are associated with APR production operations related to processing liquid resins into a dry form. Back-end process operations include, but are not limited to, flaking, grinding, blending, mixing, drying, pelletizing, and other finishing operations, as well as latex and crumb storage. Front-end CPVs are associated with the part of an APR process unit related to producing liquid resins, including any product recovery, stripping, and filtering operations. Front-end CPVs can be further distinguished as being reactor CPVs or non-reactor CPVs. A reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a reactor, whereas a non-reactor front-end CPV receives air streams originating from a unit operation other than a reactor. Examples of non-reactor front-end CPV unit operations include filter presses, surge control vessels, bottoms receivers, weigh tanks, holding tanks, and distillation systems.
The EPA has identified two APR Production existing sources that have front-end CPVs. One is Georgia-Pacific's facility in Crossett, Arkansas, and the other is an INEOS Melamines facility in Springfield, Massachusetts. Georgia-Pacific has a front-end reactor CPV that handles air streams originating from the reactor associated with the manufacture of UFC. This front-end CPV is controlled with an RTO that achieves a HAP control efficiency of 95 percent or more and also controls HAP emissions from other processes at the facility. The EPA became aware of this front-end CPV through comments on the 2014 proposed rulemaking, but had limited information about this front-end CPV at the time of the final rule. INEOS Melamines has a front-end non-reactor CPV that handles air streams from the formaldehyde recovery process associated with their amino resins production process. This front-end CPV is routed to a scrubber, which was installed primarily for control of particulate matter emissions. The EPA was not aware of this front-end CPV unit during the 2014 rulemaking, but learned of it in 2015 from communications with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. We are not aware of any other front-end CPVs at any of the other existing sources in the APR Production source category.
Since the air emission streams from these two front-end CPVs have different characteristics, such as different flow rates and HAP concentrations, and are vents for dissimilar types of equipment and would likely require different control approaches, we are soliciting comments on, but not yet proposing, whether standards for these front-end CPVs should be revised from the currently applicable CPV standard of 1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced and subcategorized into two types—reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs. Separate standards for the two types of front-end CPVs would be consistent with how reactor and non-reactor vents have been regulated by the EPA for batch processes for the APR Production source category—see 40 CFR 63.1406 Reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions and 40 CFR 63.1407 Non-reactor Batch Process Vent Provisions. We are not proposing separate standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and non-reactors at this time because we are uncertain as to whether we have identified the only two front-end CPVs in the source category or whether the data for these two CPVs would be appropriate to revise the currently applicable CPV standards and establish front-end CPV standards for the source category if there are other front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. Therefore, we are seeking comment on whether there are other reactor or non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources. For
Based on the analyses presented below, we could establish separate existing APR Production source standards for front-end CPVs on reactors and for front-end CPVs on non-reactors, based on the MACT floor. We are soliciting comments on whether the EPA should maintain the 2014 final rule CPV emissions standards that currently apply to front-end CPVs (1.9 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced), whether the EPA should replace these standards for front-end CPVs with standards specific to front-end CPVs as discussed in this section, or whether the EPA should set different revised front-end CPV standards based on additional information about additional front-end CPVs that the EPA has not yet obtained.
On November 30, 2015, the EPA requested process information and emissions data for front-end CPVs at Georgia-Pacific's Crossett and INEOS Melamines' resin production facilities via a CAA section 114 survey. Georgia-Pacific has another formaldehyde and resin manufacturing facility located in Columbus, Ohio, for which Georgia-Pacific also provided information in their survey submittal. Although the Columbus facility is an area source not subject to the APR MACT standards, Georgia-Pacific provided the data to help clarify emissions that would be expected from the front-end CPV due to APR production at the Georgia-Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas, where the front-end CPV at this facility handles streams from both APR and non-APR production sources, since the Columbus and Crossett resin manufacturing operations are similar. The EPA received responses from Georgia-Pacific on February 9, 2016, and responses from INEOS Melamines on January 11, 2016, with additional information on May 23, 2016. The CAA section 114 survey and the survey responses received from Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines can be found in the rulemaking docket.
We performed separate MACT floor analyses for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data provided by Georgia-Pacific and INEOS Melamines.
For front-end reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is a Georgia Pacific facility in Crossett, Arkansas. Georgia-Pacific also submitted data for a facility in Columbus, Ohio, which is a synthetic area source and is not subject to the APR NESHAP. Consistent with the EPA's longstanding policy and with prior rulemakings where the EPA has included data from synthetic area sources in MACT floor calculations,
For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, we are aware of one major source facility with a front-end non-reactor CPV subject to the APR NESHAP, which is INEOS Melamines in Springfield, Massachusetts. As there is only one front-end CPV in this subcategory, the emissions level currently being achieved by this CPV represents the MACT floor for the subcategory. Based on our analysis of the data provided by INEOS Melamines for this front-end CPV, we have determined that the MACT floor for front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources would be 0.022 lb of HAP per hour.
We also conducted a beyond-the-floor analysis for reactor and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing sources using the 2016 CAA section 114 survey data. For front-end reactor CPVs, HAP emissions from the CPVs at both facilities are controlled with RTOs, and we have not identified any other technology that would perform better. Therefore, there is no beyond-the-floor option to evaluate.
For front-end non-reactor CPVs at existing sources, the CPV at the INEOS Melamines facility is currently controlled with a scrubber, and we assumed carbon adsorption would be a technically feasible control technology that would reduce HAP emissions. We estimated the total annualized costs of adding carbon adsorption to be approximately $9,000 per year and the control would achieve an additional reduction of 0.04 tons of HAP per year, resulting in a cost of approximately $225,000 per ton of HAP removed beyond the MACT floor level of control. Based on the high costs and low additional emissions reduction possible with this control, we have determined that this beyond-the-floor option is not reasonable. More information on these MACT floor and beyond-the-floor analyses are available in the memorandum titled “MACT Floor and Beyond-the-Floor Analyses for Front-End Continuous Process Vents at Existing Sources in the Amino and Phenolic Resins Production Source Category” in the rulemaking docket.
In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemption from emissions standards for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction in accordance with a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
In the 2014 final rule, we established storage vessel capacity and vapor pressure applicability thresholds for storage vessels at new and existing sources, consistent with the thresholds established for the chemical industry regulated by the Hazardous Organic NESHAP for Synthetic Organic
To determine whether separate MACT standards should be established for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof tank at a new or existing source, we reviewed the title V permits for each facility subject to the APR NESHAP. In this review, we searched for facilities that had storage vessels subject to the emissions standards of the APR NESHAP and for any permit requirements pertaining to periods of routine maintenance of a control device for a storage vessel. From the review, several facilities were found to have storage vessels subject to the APR NESHAP emission standards, and two facilities had permit conditions for periods of time when the storage vessel control device was not operating. One facility had requirements that emissions be routed to a different control device, which normally operates at the facility for other processes, during planned outages of the primary control device for the storage vessel. At this facility, when both control devices are not operating, there are requirements that the storage vessels not be filled during these times, eliminating working loss emissions. The other facility had requirements for one storage vessel that specify it could not be filled when its emission control system was not operating. The reviewed title V permits also indicate that some APR facilities are co-located with storage vessels subject to the HON (or have storage vessels that serve both APR and HON operations, but are subject to the HON due to predominant use).
We also reviewed other chemical production NESHAP to determine requirements that apply to similar storage vessels. From the review of these NESHAP, we found that the HON and several other NESHAP, including, but not limited to, those for Group I Polymers and Resins, Group IV Polymers and Resins, Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations, Pharmaceuticals Production, and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production with similar vapor pressure and threshold capacities had provisions that minimized HAP emissions during periods of planned routine maintenance. Provisions minimized HAP emissions by limiting the duration of the planned routine maintenance to 240 hours per year. The Pharmaceuticals Production and Pesticide Active Ingredient Production NESHAP allow a facility to request an extension of up to an additional 120 hours per year on the condition that no material is added to the tank during such requested extension period. Based on our review of these permits and NESHAP, we have determined that a separate work practice standard that allows owners/operators up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the vessel, represents the MACT floor level of control for fixed roof tank vents at new and existing APR sources.
We evaluated the 2014 final rule's requirement that the storage vessel work practice standard at new and existing APR sources apply at all times (with no separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system) as a beyond-the-floor control option. To comply with this option (
Based on this analysis, we are proposing amendments to the currently applicable storage vessel work practice standard provisions for new and existing affected sources that would establish separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with HAP emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. The proposed amendments would permit owners and operators of fixed roof tanks at new and existing affected APR sources to bypass the emission control system for up to 240 hours per year during planned routine maintenance of the emission control system, provided that there are no working losses from the fixed roof tank. To prevent HAP emissions from working losses, owners/operators would not be permitted to add material to the tank during these planned routine maintenance periods. Under this provision, the storage vessel would emit HAP to the atmosphere for a limited amount of time due to breathing losses only, which we expect to be a much lower HAP emission rate than if there were also working losses resulting from filling the vessel. The proposed separate work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system would result in slightly higher HAP emissions (approximately 0.013 tons per year per facility) than would occur under the current work practice standards for storage vessels in the 2014 final rule and would reduce annualized costs of approximately $830 per year per facility.
We are soliciting comments on these proposed work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing APR sources and whether they represent practices by the best-performing sources in the APR Production source category. We are soliciting comments on whether there are other practices that should be considered in establishing the work practice standards for periods of planned routine maintenance of the emission control system for storage vessels at existing and new APR sources. We are also soliciting comments on whether we have accurately estimated the HAP emissions and costs compared to the work practice standards for storage vessels at new and existing sources in the 2014 final rule.
We estimate that four to 15 existing sources would be affected by one or more of the revised requirements being
We are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced for back-end CPVs at existing sources. We project that the proposed standard would result in an estimated reduction of 207 tons of HAP per year beyond the January 2000, APR MACT standards. As discussed previously in section III.B.2 of this preamble, the production-based emissions limit for existing source CPVs in the 2014 final rule was established based on incomplete HAP emissions data. However, if facilities were to comply with that 2014 final rule, we estimate a reduction of 271 tons per year of HAP emissions using the revised HAP emissions estimates based upon the 2015 test data.
In the 2014 final rule, we removed the exemptions from standards that applied during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. In the absence of separate work practice standards that would apply during these times, affected sources are now required to meet the storage vessel work practice standards during periods when the emission control system for the vent on a fixed roof storage tank is shut down for planned routine maintenance by routing storage vessel vents to a back-up control device, resulting in an estimated decrease of 0.013 tons of HAP per year per facility beyond the January 2000 APR MACT standards. The proposed work practice standards we are proposing in this action would preclude the need to install back-up controls for these vessels. We anticipate that the proposed revised work practice standards would reduce HAP emissions from those allowed under the January 2000 APR MACT standards as a result of preventing working losses by not filling the tank during planned routine maintenance of the control device and as a result of limiting the annual duration of the maintenance period; however, the HAP emissions reduction may be slightly less than the 0.08 tons of HAP per year projected under the 2014 final rule.
For back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, we are proposing a revised standard of 8.6 lb of HAP per ton of resin produced. We project that back-end CPVs at two existing affected sources would require emissions controls to meet the proposed revised standard. For cost purposes, we assumed that each facility would install an RTO. Based on discussions with Georgia-Pacific and Tembec, we understand that the facilities are exploring other options, such as process changes, that may be more cost effective. However, the technical feasibility and potential costs of these options are currently unknown, and our estimate of compliance costs, assuming the use of RTOs, is based on the best information available. We estimate the nationwide capital costs to be $4.8 million and annualized costs to be $2.1 million per year. These costs are additional to the 2000 rule, which did not regulate CPVs at existing sources. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs of $9.6 million in capital costs and annualized costs of $4.2 million,
We estimated the nationwide annualized cost reductions associated with the proposed work practice standard for periods of planned routine maintenance of an emission control system that is used to comply with emissions standards for vents on fixed roof tanks. Compared to our revised estimate of the 2014 final rule costs,
We performed a national economic impact analysis for APR production facilities affected by this proposed rule. We anticipate that two existing affected sources would install RTOs to comply with this proposed rule at a total annualized cost of $2.1 million (in 2014$) per year compared to the 2000 rule. These total annualized costs of compliance are estimated to be approximately 0.002 percent of sales. Accordingly, we do not project that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on the affected entities.
The estimated total annualized cost of this proposal can also be compared to the estimated cost for the industry to comply with the 2014 final rule. Based on information received since the 2014 rule was finalized, we developed a revised estimate of the cost to comply with the 2014 final rule. We estimate the revised annualized cost of complying with the 2014 final rule to be $4.2 million per year.
More information and details of this analysis, including the conclusions stated above, are provided in the technical document, “Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Amendments to the NESHAP for Amino/Phenolic Resins,” which is available in the rulemaking docket.
We estimate that this proposed rule would result in an annual reduction of 207 tons of HAP, compared to the pre-2014 baseline. These avoided emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduced negative health effects associated with exposure to air pollution of these emissions; however, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. See section V.B of this preamble for discussion of existing source CPV HAP emissions under this proposed rule compared to the 2014 final rule.
The EPA seeks public comments on the issues addressed in this proposed rule, as described in this notice. We are soliciting comments on the proposed emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to extend the compliance date for the proposed revised emission standards for back-end CPVs at existing affected sources, whether to promulgate separate emissions standards for reactor front-end CPVs and non-reactor front-end CPVs at existing affected sources in lieu of leaving them subject to the current CPV standards, and on the information
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.
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 1869.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This proposed rule would require recordkeeping and reporting of occurrences when control devices used to comply with the storage tank provisions undergo planned routine maintenance. Reporting of such occurrences would be required to be disclosed in the Periodic Reports as specified at 40 CFR 63.1417.
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 OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
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. The EPA has identified no small entities that are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 63, subpart OOO.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
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. This action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's risk assessments for the 2014 final rule (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0133) demonstrate that the current regulations are associated with an acceptable level of risk and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed action would not alter those conclusions.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In the 2014 final rule, the EPA determined that the current health risks posed by emissions from these source categories are acceptable and provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health and prevent adverse environmental effects. This proposed
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend title 40, Chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(b) * * *
(4) Equipment that does not contain organic hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and is located within an APPU that is part of an affected source;
The additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(c) Whenever gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from a tank through a closed-vent system connected to a control device used to comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the control device must be operating except as provided for in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) The control device may be bypassed for the purpose of performing planned routine maintenance of the control device. When the control device is bypassed, the owner or operator must comply with paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The control device may only be bypassed when the planned routine maintenance cannot be performed during periods that tank emissions are vented to the control device.
(ii) On an annual basis, the total time that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform routine maintenance shall not exceed 240 hours per each calendar year.
(iii) The level of material in the tank shall not be increased during periods that the closed-vent system or control device is bypassed to perform planned routine maintenance.
(2) The gases or vapors containing HAP are routed from the tank through a closed-vent system connected to an alternate control device meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) or the alterative standard in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a)
(2) Reduce emissions of total organic HAP by 85 weight-percent. Control shall be achieved by venting emissions through a closed vent system to any combination of control devices meeting the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS (national emission standards for closed vent systems, control devices, recovery devices). When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:
(b)
(1) Vent all emissions of organic HAP to a flare.
(2) The owner or operator of a back-end continuous process vent shall reduce total organic HAP emissions to less than or equal to 4.3 kg of total organic HAP per megagram of resin produced (8.6 pounds of total organic HAP per ton of resin produced).
(c)
(1) For each continuous process vent located at a new affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent meeting the TRE value specified in paragraph (a) of this section
(2) For each continuous process vent located at an existing affected source, the owner or operator shall vent all organic HAP emissions from a continuous process vent to a non-flare combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 20 ppmv or less or to a non-combustion control device achieving an outlet organic HAP concentration of 50 ppmv or less. Any continuous process vents that are not vented to a control device meeting these conditions shall be controlled in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
(a)
(k) * * *
(2) If the TRE index value calculated using engineering assessment is less than or equal to 4.0, the owner or operator is required either to perform the measurements specified in paragraphs (e) through (h) of this section for control applicability assessment or comply with the control requirements specified in § 63.1405(a).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(1) * * *
(iii)
(3)
(4)
(c) * * *
(2) Initial compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the procedures specified in paragraph (g) of this section.
(4) Continuous compliance with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1) (venting of emissions to a flare) shall be demonstrated following the continuous monitoring procedures specified in § 63.1415.
(5) Initial and continuous compliance with the production-based emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
(6) Initial and continuous compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) shall be demonstrated following the procedures of either paragraphs (c)(6)(i) or (ii) or this section.
(i) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit using a closed vent system and a control device or recovery device or by routing emissions to a fuel gas system or process shall follow the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS. When complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, the following apply for purposes of this subpart:
(A) The requirements specified in of § 63.1405 (a)(2)(i) through (viii).
(B) When 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS refers to meeting a weight-percent emission reduction or ppmv outlet concentration requirement, meeting an emission rate limit in terms of kilograms of total organic HAP per hour shall also apply.
(ii) Continuous process vents meeting the emission rate limit by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall follow the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
(7) Initial and continuous compliance with the alternative standards specified in § 63.1405(c) shall be demonstrated following the procedures in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f)
(h) * * *
(1) Each owner or operator complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i) shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this section.
(i)
(ii)
(2) As required by paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section, each owner or operator complying with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) and (iii), as applicable, by means other than those specified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section shall determine initial compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section and continuous compliance as specified in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this section.
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(ii) The daily emission rate of organic HAP, in kilograms per day, from an individual continuous process vent (E
(B) * * *
(
(
(iii) The rate of resin produced, RP
(4)
(i) The hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each hour during the operating day using Equation 6 of this section:
(ii) The average hourly emission rate, kilograms of organic HAP per hour, shall be determined for each operating day using Equation 7 of this section:
(ii) Continuous process vent flow rate and organic HAP concentration shall be determined using the procedures specified in § 63.1414(a), or by using the engineering assessment procedures in paragraph (h)(4)(iii) of this section.
(iii)
(A) Previous test results, provided the tests are representative of current operating practices.
(B) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data representative of the process under representative operating conditions.
(C) Maximum volumetric flow rate or organic HAP concentration specified or implied within a permit limit applicable to the continuous process vent.
(D) Design analysis based on accepted chemical engineering principles, measurable process parameters, or physical or chemical laws or properties. Examples of analytical methods include, but are not limited to, the following:
(
(
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Exceedance of the mass emission limit (
(iv) Exceedance of the organic HAP outlet concentration limit (
(v) Exceedance of the emission rate limit (
(e)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(f) * * * (1)
(3)
(5) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.
(iii) The daily organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(3).
(6) If a continuous process vent is seeking to demonstrate compliance with the emission rate limits specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), keep records specified in paragraphs (f)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) The results of the initial compliance demonstration specified in § 63.1413(h)(2)(i).
(ii) Identification of the period of time that represents an operating day.
(iii) The average hourly organic HAP emissions from the continuous process vent determined as specified in § 63.1413(h)(4).
(7) When using a flare to comply with § 63.1405(a)(1) or (b)(1), keep the records specified in paragraphs (f)(7)(i) through (f)(7)(iii) of this section.
(g) * * *
(5) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) The measures adopted to prevent future such pressure releases.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d)
(8) If an owner or operator is complying with the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the sample of production records specified in § 63.1413(h)(3) shall be submitted in the Precompliance Report.
(e) * * *
(1) The results of any emission point applicability determinations, performance tests, design evaluations, inspections, continuous monitoring system performance evaluations, any other information used to demonstrate compliance, and any other information, as appropriate, required to be included in the Notification of Compliance Status under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS and subpart WW, as referred to in § 63.1404 for storage vessels; under 40 CFR part 63, subpart SS, as referred to in § 63.1405 for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(f)(1) through (3), (5)(i) and (ii), and (6)(i) and (ii) for continuous process vents; under § 63.1416(d)(1) for batch process vents; and under § 63.1416(e)(1) for aggregate batch vent streams. In addition, each owner or operator shall comply with paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(f)
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (f)(12) of this section, a report containing the information in paragraph (f)(2) of this section or containing the information in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section, as appropriate, shall be submitted semiannually no later than 60 days after the end of each 180 day period. The first report shall be submitted no later than 240 days after the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due and shall cover the 6-month period beginning on the date the Notification of Compliance Status is due. Subsequent reports shall cover each preceding 6-month period.
(2) If none of the compliance exceptions specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred during the 6-month period, the Periodic Report required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section shall be a statement that the affected source was in compliance for the preceding 6-month period and no activities specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section occurred during the preceding 6-month period.
(5) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1406(a)(1)(iii) or (a)(2)(iii), § 63.1407(b)(2), or § 63.1408(b)(2), the following information, as appropriate, shall be included:
(12) * * *
(ii) The quarterly reports shall include all information specified in paragraphs (f)(3) through (11) and (13) through (15) of this section applicable to the emission point for which quarterly reporting is required under paragraph (f)(12)(i) of this section. Information applicable to other emission points within the affected source shall be submitted in the semiannual reports required under paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(14) If there is a deviation from the mass emission limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(i), the report shall include the daily average emission rate calculated for each operating day for which a deviation occurred.
(15) If there is a deviation from the emission rate limit specified in § 63.1405(b)(2)(ii) or (iii), the report shall include the following information for each operating day for which a deviation occurred:
(i) The calculated average hourly emission rate.
(ii) The individual hourly emission rate data points making up the average hourly emission rate.
(h) * * *
(7) Whenever a continuous process vent becomes subject to control requirements under § 63.1405, as a result of a process change, the owner or operator shall submit a report within 60 days after the performance test or applicability assessment, whichever is sooner. The report may be submitted as part of the next Periodic Report required by paragraph (f) of this section.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on how to revise the current FCC Form 477 collection of voice and broadband subscription and deployment data to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public.
Comments are due on or before September 25, 2017 and reply comments are due on or before October 10, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 11–10, by any of the following methods:
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554.
•
Thomas Parisi, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418–1356 or TTY: (202) 418–0484.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM or Further Notice) in WC Docket No. 11–10; FCC 17–103, adopted on August 3, 2017 and released on August 4, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address:
1. The Commission initiates a further proceeding to take a focused look at the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. The Commission's goal in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is two-pronged: To examine its experience based its current data collection in order to collect better and more accurate information on Form 477; and, to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts to improve the value of the data the Commission continues to collect, while also identifying and eliminating unnecessary or overly burdensome filing requirements.
2. Accurate and reliable data on fixed and mobile broadband and voice services are critical to the Commission's ability to meet its goal of decision-making based on sound and rigorous data analysis. Others, including Congressional and state and Tribal policymakers, researchers, and consumers, also rely on the data the Commission collects for a variety of purposes. In support of these efforts, the Commission seeks comment first on ways in which it might change aspects of the Form 477 to increase the quality and accuracy of the information the Commission will continue to collect. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current Form 477 requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on filers. The Commission begins below with its proposals for improving and streamlining the Form 477 data collection for mobile services, before turning to a discussion of fixed services.
3. In undertaking this examination of the Form 477 data collection, one of the primary objectives is to ensure that the data the Commission collects are closely aligned with the uses to which they will be put, both by the Commission and by outside stakeholders. As a preliminary issue, the Commission seeks comment on those uses to inform its analysis. For each of the issues considered below, the Commission asks for comment on the relationship between potential changes to the collection and the current or expected need for, and use of, the data. Specifically, the Commission asks for comment on whether and how revisions to the collection would better support an existing or expected use of data. In addition to the Commission's many uses for the data, the Commission understands that external stakeholder uses of the data include state public utility commission regulatory and program analysis, academic research, and state and local broadband deployment and adoption analysis. Are there other external uses of the data for which the Commission should account if the Commission makes changes to the collection? Is the existing data collection well designed for Commission and stakeholder use? Will the revisions under consideration in the FNPRM better align the data the Commission collects with the use of those data? Are there elements of the collection not discussed below that should be considered for elimination because of redundancy or insufficient usefulness?
4. Having accurate and reliable mobile broadband deployment data is critical to policymakers as well as to consumers. However, obtaining meaningful data in the mobile context is challenging. A user's mobile service experience is inherently variable and is affected by various factors, such as terrain, location (
5. The current Form 477 data on deployment of mobile broadband services represents a significant improvement over the data that were previously available from earlier data sources. The
6. The Commission experience in analyzing and working with the Form 477 data has shown, however, that the Form 477 data could be improved further to better understand the mobile broadband service that consumers actually experience. As noted above, service providers are required to file, and certify the accuracy of, shapefiles representing those areas where, for a specified technology, “users should expect the minimum advertised upload and download data speeds associated with that network technology.” Questions have arisen in various
7.
8.
9. What input parameters would the Commission need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparison among providers' LTE data submissions? As examples, should the Commission standardize, or specify reasonable ranges for, any of the following parameters, and, if so, why: (1) Location of cells in decimal latitude and longitude; (2) channel bandwidth in MHz; (3) signal strength; (4) signal quality with signal to noise ratio; (5) cell loading factors; or (6) terrain provided at a minimum resolution of three arc-seconds? What is the minimum set of parameters the Commission would need to standardize to allow for meaningful comparisons among service providers? To what extent should the providers be free to determine their speeds? To what extent would these predictive models provide the most accurate predictions of actual consumer experience? Would submissions of standardized predictive propagation models with prescribed parameters be too burdensome on smaller service providers? If so, how could the Commission ensure it receives standardized submissions from all providers without unduly burdening small service providers?
10.
11.
12.
13. The
14. Under the current Form 477 reporting framework, facilities-based providers of mobile wireless broadband service are required to submit shapefiles depicting their broadband network coverage areas for each transmission technology deployed in each frequency band. Although the Commission in the
15. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement that mobile broadband providers submit their broadband deployment data by spectrum band. The Commission anticipates that eliminating the requirement to provide spectrum band information would greatly streamline and reduce the burdens on providers by reducing the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) they are required to submit. For example, a provider currently providing LTE in four spectrum bands would only have to submit one shapefile representing its coverage rather than four shapefiles. Moreover, currently the Commission is not aware of any significant purpose for which these data might be used, although the Commission seeks comment on whether to continue to collect these data as they might be helpful for analysis in future proceedings. The Commission also seeks comment on any alternative approaches it should consider in lieu of adopting the streamlining proposal. For example, should the Commission consider adopting an alternative process under which providers might provide a list of bands and the associated amount of spectrum used to provision various mobile technologies by some geography, such as the CMA? Would this approach be less burdensome than the requirement to submit shapefiles for each spectrum band, particularly for smaller providers? Would this approach be beneficial by providing data that would allow the Commission to track more easily new spectrum deployments? Would it, for instance, provide a valuable source of information regarding the timing and provision of LTE on 3.5 GHz spectrum as well as the deployment of 5G services in the various low, mid, and high spectrum bands?
16. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment about whether to eliminate or modify the requirement that mobile broadband providers report coverage information for each technology deployed in their networks. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should simplify the filing process by requiring that coverage maps be provided for four categories of technology—3G, 4G non-LTE, 4G LTE, and 5G—rather than by each specific broadband technology, and how these categories should be defined. Are these categories defined and distinct enough to ensure accurate and meaningful reporting? Are the distinctions between categories, such as 4G versus 5G, clear enough for the data to be meaningful and for respondents to accurately submit data? Will the Commission need to specify which technologies correspond to which category? Currently, the Form 477 instructions set out specific technology codes for nine different mobile technologies. In the Commission's experience, the separate reporting of coverage information by every one of these nine specific mobile technologies has not added useful information for the purposes of Commission decision-making, and such information is not currently used in its analysis of the data received. The Commission seeks comment on whether eliminating the requirement or modifying the information required to be reported in this manner would be a significant reduction in the filing burden.
17. The Commission turns next to its consideration of mobile broadband service availability data. Currently, mobile broadband providers are required to submit data where their service is “available.” To comply with this requirement, mobile broadband providers must submit a comma separated values (CSV) file of all census tracts where the provider's mobile wireless broadband service is advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers. This requirement was designed to identify those geographic areas where a service provider has coverage but is not affirmatively offering service to subscribers through a local retail presence.
18. The Commission's experience with the collection of this information, however, has shown that the mobile broadband service availability data that providers submit generally do not reflect their local retail presence. Instead, the Commission has found that filers claim that their service is available beyond where they may have a local retail presence. In view of its experience with these data, the Commission seeks comment about the continued significance of local retail presence information. The Commission proposes eliminating the requirement to submit mobile broadband service availability data, as it is not producing accurate information about where services are affirmatively available to American consumers.
19. Next, the Commission seeks comment about how the Commission might revise its data collection on the deployment of mobile voice services. The
20. The Commission continues to view the collection of mobile voice deployment data as important for tracking changes in the mobile landscape and informing the Commission's analysis of mobile voice services that are available to consumers. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether there are ways that it may refine its collection of this information to reduce burdens for providers. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the requirement to submit voice coverage data by technology and spectrum band. Does the Commission still need these data to accurately evaluate the mobile voice services that
21. To the extent that the collection of mobile voice deployment data by technology is still necessary, should the Commission continue to collect GSM, CDMA and Analog voice data separately? Should the Commission collect separate voice deployment data for VoLTE and mobile switched voice? The Commission anticipates that revising the data collection in this manner would help the Commission assess where providers claim to have VoLTE coverage and assist efforts in the areas of emergency response. The Commission seeks comment on the importance of collecting information about VoLTE coverage.
22. The Commission seeks comment on how it can improve the data collected on mobile broadband and voice subscription. Form 477 currently requires that mobile voice and broadband subscriber information be submitted at the state level. Given the aggregate nature of the current data collection, the Commission currently uses telephone number-based Number Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data for its subscriber and market share analysis in secondary market transaction review and other proceedings. The NRUF data, however, have certain limitations; for example, NRUF data are more a measure of the number of mobile wireless connections than subscribers. It is increasingly more difficult to determine the number of mobile subscribers through the use of NRUF data because consumers are more likely to use more than one mobile device that have been assigned telephone numbers—particularly non-voice devices, such as Internet access devices (
23. With respect to the existing Form 477 subscription data, because subscriber data are collected at the state level, they are not sufficiently granular for meaningful evaluation of mobile service subscribership, as noted. Subscription data at a more disaggregated geographic level would significantly improve the Commission's ability to provide more accurate mobile competition analyses, particularly in the secondary market transactions review.
24. While the Commission's
25. Would collecting subscribership data at the census-tract level be sufficient to improve the quality of the Commission's data on subscribership? Are subscribers' billing addresses sufficiently correlated with the areas in which subscribers use their mobile wireless devices to be meaningful in the Commission's competitive analyses, and if not, what else should the Commission consider? Does the answer differ for residential and business accounts? Should the Commission consider requiring subscribership data for a different geographic area? For example, while reporting subscribership at the census-tract level would parallel the requirement for fixed service, what are the costs and benefits of reporting at a different geographic level? Whatever the geographic level adopted, the Commission seeks comment on whether using the billing address to assign subscribers to a census tract would be appropriate or, in the alternative, whether using the customer place of primary use address would be preferable as it may be less burdensome for providers. How should filers assign resold lines and broadband-only lines to the more granular geographic level? How should the Commission consider subscribership with respect to 5G services and the IoT? What metrics might the Commission consider in measuring subscribership?
26. For each census block in which providers submit fixed broadband deployment data, providers must report whether they deploy “mass market/consumer” service and/or “business/enterprise/government” service. All facilities-based fixed broadband providers, including cable operators, must report the census blocks where they make fixed broadband services available to residential and business customers at bandwidths exceeding 200 kbps in at least one direction. The Commission currently requires providers offering business/enterprise/government services to report the maximum downstream and upstream contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (committed information rate (CIR)) available in each reported census block. If, in a particular block, providers offer business/enterprise/government services that do not have a contractual or guaranteed data throughput rate (
27. The Commission seeks comment on whether to eliminate the separate reporting of available contractual or guaranteed data throughput rates for business/enterprise/government services, while maintaining separate indicators for mass market/consumer service and/or business/enterprise/government deployment. The Commission uses the Form 477 data in connection with many of its proceedings and programs, including the Broadband Progress Report, Universal Service Fund proceedings, the
28. In interactions with filers, staff also have found that filers may be reporting CIR data incorrectly in some cases. It is not unusual for filers to report speeds as contractually guaranteed, when in fact they are best-efforts services. As the technology for providing business/enterprise/government services continues to evolve, along with the demand for them, providers increasingly use a variety of technologies in addition to TDM and fiber to serve customers, including mass market service, HFC, UNEs, and Dark Fiber—with and without contractual service level guarantees. If commenters believe that the Commission should continue to separately collect bandwidth information specific to contractually guaranteed business/enterprise/government services, how can the Commission ensure that providers accurately characterize their offerings? Should the Commission require filers to report the maximum bandwidths of business service offered in a given census block and indicate whether the service is best efforts and/or contractually guaranteed? Alternatively, should the Commission require fixed broadband providers to continue to report whether they offer business/enterprise/government services, but no longer report any speed data associated with such services? The Commission notes that this approach would lessen the burden on filers, but would it also help ensure more accurate reporting? Would information about business/enterprise/government services still be valuable in the absence of speed data, or would it be better to remove the requirement to report these data altogether?
29. Facilities-based providers of fixed broadband must provide in their Form 477 submissions a list of all census blocks where they make broadband connections available to end-user premises, along with the last-mile technology or technologies used. These deployment data represent the areas where a provider does,
30. The Commission seeks comment on whether to require fixed broadband providers to indicate whether total customers served on a particular technology could be increased in each census block listed when they report deployment data. It seeks comment on whether all fixed broadband providers should be required to identify on Form 477 three categories of service areas for each technology code: (1) Areas where there are both existing customers served by a particular last-mile technology, and total number of customers using that technology can, and would, be readily increased within a standard interval upon request; (2) areas where existing customers are served but no net-additional customers using that technology will be accommodated; and (3) areas where there are no existing customers for a particular technology but new customers will be added within a standard interval upon request. If it determines to add such a requirement, the Commission seeks comment on how providers would identify the relevant geographic units. For example, if a satellite provider could not increase the total number of new subscribers in a spot beam, would they be able to indicate the speed and/or the capacity to increase the total number of subscribers at various locations in the beam at the block or sub-block level? Would this modification to the current requirements elicit data that are more accurate and useful to the Commission, other policymakers, and the public than the deployment data currently collected? These distinctions could help policymakers understand which areas may be limited for service expansion using specific technologies and which areas may be capable of increasing the total number of subscribers using specific technologies. Doing so would offer the Commission, as well as other users of these data, a more nuanced picture of deployment. It would be possible to see, for example, where providers are building capacity, using which technologies, and similarly where they are not.
31. The Commission seeks comment on the specific costs for fixed broadband providers to report such data, and how to ensure that reporting the data would be as minimally burdensome on filers as possible. Is it reasonable, for example, to assume that fixed broadband providers are aware of whether they have the capacity in place to make their service available and add new subscribers in a particular location? Do providers routinely maintain information about their service areas that would enable them to provide this information readily, or would this proposal require them to develop new information? The Commission seeks comment on the estimated time required to produce the data and ask commenters to provide the incremental costs of any new software development in addition to the average wage rate estimate. Commenters should also address whether technical or other features of particular transmission technologies would raise issues that would make this information more or less difficult to report.
32. As previously stated, Form 477 collects fixed broadband deployment data on the census-block level. In the
33. More recently, the Commission has requested that specific providers involved in certain of its proceedings provide fixed broadband deployment data on a more granular basis than by census block. For example, the Commission currently collects location-level data from recipients of USF funding to assess whether they are meeting their buildout requirements. The Commission has found this more granular data to be extremely useful in understanding issues surrounding fixed broadband deployment in these contexts and believes that it could be useful if residential deployment data in particular were more generally available to the Commission. The Commission notes that stakeholders have recommended collecting and reporting deployment data at various sub-census block geographies, including at the street-address or parcel level.
34. The Commission seeks comment on giving fixed-broadband providers the option of reporting their deployment data by filing geospatial data showing coverage areas (
35. The Commission also seeks comment on collecting data at a sub-census-block level. While collection of data by street address, for example, could increase the complexity and burden of the collection for both the Commission and the filers, the Commission seeks comment on the scope of this burden and potential corresponding benefits. For example, having national, granular broadband deployment data could greatly assist with any future disbursement of high-cost funds or universal service reverse auctions, assist consumers with locating broadband competition in their area, and with other broad public policy goals. With more than 130 million housing units in the country, an address-level dataset could have as many as roughly 750 million records for each filing; based on the scale of this dataset, a household-level collection could require significant additional time and other resources to establish and carry out. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a publicly available, nationwide data set containing the address and location (latitude and longitude; and for Multiple Dwelling Units (MDUs), possibly altitude information to distinguish data about units on different floors) for each housing unit in the country, such that filers, or the Commission could geocode street addresses. And, given that the number of housing units changes each year, the Commission is similarly unaware of a means to update such a data set or of publicly available and annually updated source of housing units or population counts in each block that is publicly available and updated annually. The Commission additionally seeks comment on whether the Commission should require providers to submit the service address for every housing unit at which service is available. While this approach would require the Commission to take on the cost of geocoding all the filings, it would potentially relieve burden on the industry. If the Commission requires service address reporting, the Commission seeks comment on ways it could make the reporting less burdensome on providers and the Commission. For example, should the Commission require specific formatting for submission of address-level data? In addition, how could Commission staff find latitude and longitude for addresses that do not provide a full match from a geocoding service?
36. As an alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should require providers to geocode all the addresses at which service is available. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits associated with this approach, and on ways that the Commission could ease the burden on filers. For example, should the Commission specify a single geocoding methodology to be used by all providers (
37. The Commission also seeks comment on other sub-census block alternatives, such as collecting data about what street segments providers cover. This approach could avoid some of the problems with address-level collections—providers would not need to know every address they cover, only the geographic areas; and there would be no need for geocoding. Such a collection would provide an indication of the road segments where service is available (or, perhaps, road segments along which facilities run), and by extension, road segments along which there is no service or facilities. However, without a data set of housing-unit locations, this method would not yield information on how many homes are along road segments with service and how many are along road segments that lack service. Service might be concentrated in areas where people live in some blocks but not available to all homes in other blocks. A street-segment data collection would not allow the Commission to differentiate those two very different possibilities. In short, lacking a data set with the location of each housing unit, this approach would provide a map of roads that lack fixed-broadband service or facilities, not an indication of the number or location of homes or people that lack service. The Commission seeks comment on these conclusions, and on suggestions for resolving these concerns. What are the costs and benefits of adopting a street segment approach for data collection?
38. The Commission notes that NTIA collected sub-block level data for blocks larger than two square miles for the National Broadband Map, but also that such data did not provide an indication of where homes lacked broadband availability. For such large blocks, some providers filed data indicating road lengths along which they stated their service was available, others provided points where service was available, and fixed wireless providers supplied geospatial data indicating their coverage areas. However, because no database indicated where the housing units were actually located within these large blocks, the number of housing units that could actually receive service could not be determined. In other words, while the data indicated what
39. Another approach to understanding sub-block coverage would be to require broadband providers to identify blocks that they can fully serve. Under this approach, in addition to filing data on technology and download and upload speed, providers would submit data indicating, for each block, whether they can make service available to all locations (residential and business) within the block. The Commission seeks comment on whether fixed broadband providers, particularly providers of wired broadband services, know whether any locations within each block are beyond the reach of their facilities, such that they could not make service available within a typical service interval. How burdensome would it be for providers to make such a determination for each block in their footprint? Would such data be more useful to the Commission than the fixed deployment data currently collected? If the Commission had information about fully covered blocks, it would also know, for each provider, which blocks are
40. In sum, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should move to a more granular basis for reporting deployment data and, if so, what basis would be appropriate. For each basis they support, commenters should explain in detail the methodology or approach they propose for capturing the data in a sufficiently uniform format to facilitate processing (
41. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify the Form 477 requirements relating to satellite broadband deployment data to address issues unique to satellite broadband service. Since satellite providers initially reported that they could provide service to millions of census blocks, the
42. The Commission seeks comment specifically on eliminating the option to file abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data for each state. Will removing the option of filing abbreviated fixed broadband deployment data improve the accuracy of the data? Should satellite broadband providers instead report a list of all census blocks, similar to other fixed broadband providers? What if any incremental burden on satellite providers is likely to result from eliminating the abbreviated option? Are there any other options for satellite broadband providers?
43. The Commission notes that satellite-based broadband networks, like all fixed-broadband networks, have capacity limits in some parts of the network, and that networks are not generally capable of serving all potential customers across a large footprint (such as the continental United States) at once. The Commission seeks comment on whether satellite's unique characteristics (
44. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if it does not revise deployment reporting requirements to allow all providers of fixed broadband service to file shapefiles or rasters in lieu of census blocks, it should allow satellite providers to do so. Would satellite providers face lower burdens and/or would the data quality improve if the Commission accepted geospatial data rather than block-level data from satellite providers? The Commission notes, as discussed in the
45. Are there other issues unique to satellite that affect the accuracy or utility of the data the Commission collects and, if so, what approaches could it take to address them? What are the costs and benefits of these approaches?
46. Rate-of-return carriers currently submit their fixed voice subscription (FVS) counts by study area to USAC on an annual basis, and the FCC publishes those data. The Commission believes these data provide useful information to the public about the extent of voice subscriptions in each carrier's study area. However, under a rule recently adopted in the CAF proceeding, rate-of-return carriers switching to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model and Alaska Plan carriers may no longer report such data to USAC for their legacy study area boundaries. In order to maintain the reporting of this information, the Commission proposes to use the Form 477 FVS data, in conjunction with Study Area Boundary data, to develop and publish aggregated voice line counts for every study area, to mirror the approach used to collect these data from price-cap carriers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and on the methodology for generating this metric. While the Commission has generally determined not to routinely release filer-specific data collected on Form 477, in this case, the information, collected via another source, has been routinely publicized. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the value of using the Form 477 data for this purpose outweighs any associated confidentiality interest in the confidentiality of the data. The Commission seeks comment on this and on whether the use of Form 477 data is the most efficient and effective means for collecting data.
47. The Commission proposes that certain collected data that are currently treated as confidential be made public. First, the Commission proposes that minimum advertised or expected speed data for mobile broadband services should not be treated as confidential and it proposes releasing such data for all subsequent Form 477 filings going forward. The Commission notes that, in the context of the Mobility Fund II proceeding, several parties have expressed opposition to a proposal to release minimum advertised or expected 4G LTE speed data. Currently, the providers' Form 477 minimum advertised speeds have been treated as confidential and consumers and policy makers have been limited in their ability to compare offerings from this collection. This information, however, is already available from other sources. For example, providers routinely make available on their Web sites information about the typical upload and download speeds their network offers in particular geographic areas. Because speed data information is publicly available, the Commission believes that it is not commercially sensitive, and its release will not cause competitive harm. In addition, the Commission expects that dissemination of minimum advertised or expected speed data to the public would promote a more informed, efficient market by providing information that can aid in independent analyses. Making such data available to the public provides consumers, states, and experts the opportunity to review the data to ensure the accuracy of the information. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. To the extent the Commission collects any other speed data that are currently treated as confidential, it seeks comment on whether such data should also be made available to the public, again to promote a more informed, efficient market and aid in independent competitive analyses.
48. Similarly, the Commission proposes that, if detailed propagation model parameters are submitted in the Form 477 filings, some of these parameters should be treated as public information, as the Commission believes that such parameters are not competitively sensitive. For example, terrain resolution, signal strength, and the loading factor are higher-level aggregate parameters and should not be treated as confidential. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. If filers believe that certain propagation model parameters should be treated as confidential for competitive reasons, then they should provide a list of those parameters, and explain the underlying reasons why.
49.
50.
51.
52. Form 477 is currently a semi-annual collection. In the
53. The Commission also seeks comment on whether collecting on a twelve-month cycle would render the data less useful for its purposes, given the rate of broadband deployment and uptake, particularly at higher speeds, industrywide. For example, how would an annual collection affect Commission policymaking? Would it be more difficult to analyze industry trends—such as competition, entry/expansion, adoption of newer technologies and faster speeds—with only annual data? On a one-year cycle, the most recently filed data available for analysis may be up to six months older than it is now. Would the lack of more recent data unduly impair the Commission's ability to carry out transaction review effectively or generate comprehensive and up-to-date Broadband Progress reports?
54. As part of its examination of the Form 477 collection, the Commission also seeks input on how it make the Form 477 data available to the public and stakeholders. How would the proposals described in this FNPRM affect the Commission's ability to process the data and make them available? Given current data and the proposals above, what approach should the Commission take with regard to the National Broadband Map (NBM) (
55.
56. With this FNPRM, the Commission initiates a further proceeding to examine the effectiveness of the Commission's Form 477—the principal tool used by the Commission to gather data on communications services, including broadband services, to help inform policymaking. In establishing Form 477, the Commission envisioned that the data collected would help it better assess the availability of broadband services, such as high-speed Internet access service, and the development of competition for local telephone service, materially improving its policymaking in those areas. From the outset, the Commission sought to minimize the burden the collection requirements would impose on filers. The Commission's goal in this FNPRM is to eliminate the collection of certain information on Form 477 that the Commission believes is not sufficiently useful when compared with the burden imposed on filers in providing it and to explore how the Commission can revise other aspects of the data collection to increase its usefulness to the Commission, Congress, the industry, and the public. These steps continue the Commission's efforts since the creation of Form 477 to identify and eliminate unnecessary or overly-burdensome filing requirements while improving the value of the data the Commission continues to collect. This FNPRM proposes several ways to streamline the information collected in Form 477 as well as suggests ways to ensure Form 477 data are as accurate and reliable as possible.
57. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the FNPRM is contained in sections 3, 10, 201(b), 230, 254(e), 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 47 U.S.C. 153, 160, 201(b), 254(e), 303(r), 332.
58. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
59.
60. The potential modifications proposed in this FNPRM if adopted, could, at least initially, impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities. In order to evaluate any new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that may result from the actions proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought input from the parties on various matters. As indicated above, the FNPRM seeks comment on modifications to the Commission's existing Form 477 to minimize burdens on carriers while enhancing the utility of the data the Commission collects. The proposals include removing some previous Form 477 reporting requirements, altering some existing requirements, and supplementing the Form 477 collection with some additional, directed proposals to improve the data collected. For example, the Commission proposes to remove some requirements that do not appear to provide salient data, but the Commission also proposes collecting new or different data to ensure the data capture the most relevant new advances in service offerings and availability. Nevertheless, the Commission anticipates that the removal or modification of some Form 477 reporting requirements will lead to a long-term reduction in reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on some small entities.
61. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
62. To evaluate options and alternatives should there be a significant economic impact on small entities as a result of actions that have been proposed in this FNPRM, the Commission has sought comment from the parties. The FNPRM seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might streamline its current requirements and thereby reduce the burdens on small providers and other filers. The Commission also seeks comment on ways in which the Commission might improve the usefulness of other aspects of the Form 477 to maximize the utility of the information the Commission continues to collect. For example, the Commission asks whether the Commission needs to collect mobile voice deployment data by technology and spectrum band, and whether the Commission should revise mobile voice deployment reporting requirements to allow a simple check instead of detailed information for some existing voice deployment reporting requirements. Steps such as these seek to reduce the types and amount of information the Commission collects, which results in more useful information, and also reduces burdens placed on small entities and others. In addition, other proposals the Commission outlines could, for example, limit the number of shapefiles (and the amount of the associated underlying data processing) providers are required to submit.
63. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the FNPRM and this IRFA. In particular, the Commission seeks comment herein on the effect the various proposals described in the FNPRM, and summarized above, will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative Form 477 reporting requirements would have on those entities. The Commission also seeks comment from interested parties on any potential additional methods of reducing compliance burdens for small providers and ensuring the most useful information based on the Form 477 collection. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed on these topics as well as on other proposals and questions in the FNPRM that seek to reduce the burdens placed on small providers in both the mobile and fixed contexts will shape the final conclusions the Commission reaches, the final significant alternatives the Commission considers, and the actions the Commission ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities.
64. This document contains proposed modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198,
65.
66. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 201(b), 214, 218–220, 251–252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201(b), 214, 218–220, 251–252, 254, 303(r), 310, 332, 403, and 1302 this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by September 25, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commentors are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of certain fruits and vegetables into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on regulations associated with the importation of fruits and vegetables, contact Mr. Tony Roman, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2242. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
Section 319.56–25 provides the requirements for the importation of papayas from certain regions of Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama into the continental United States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The importation of these papayas requires the use of certain information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates, maintaining fruit fly monitoring records, and labeling of boxes.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an information collection associated with the requirements for the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the spread of citrus black spot.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on citrus black spot, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
APHIS issued Federal Orders for citrus black spot (CBS,
CBS, a fungal disease marked by dark, speckled spots or blotches on the rinds of fruit, is an economically significant citrus disease. It causes early fruit drop, reduces crop yield, and renders the highly blemished fruit unmarketable. While all commercial citrus cultivars are susceptible to CBS, the most vulnerable are lemons and late-maturing varieties of oranges like Valencia. These varieties are widely grown commercially in Florida and in other citrus-producing areas of the United States. The greatest risk of transmission of CBS is associated with infected nursery stock and decomposing citrus leaves that have fallen in groves. There is also a risk of disease transmission if infected leaves, plant debris, or fruit are not adequately covered or secured during transport.
To safeguard U.S. agriculture, APHIS requires the respondents listed below to complete information collection activities, such as compliance agreements, certificates, limited permits, individually numbered trip tickets, disposal site approvals, and inspections.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of an information collection associated with the requirements for the interstate movement of fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves for consumption from areas quarantined for citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves for consumption from areas quarantined for citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
The regulations in “Subpart—Citrus Greening and Asian Citrus Psyllid” (7 CFR 301.76 through 301.76–11) restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from quarantined areas to control the artificial spread of citrus greening and Asian citrus psyllid (ACP)
APHIS issued a Federal Order to allow the interstate movement of fresh, mature Kaffir lime, curry, and bael leaves intended for consumption if the listed requirements are followed. The requirements include information collection activities, such as compliance agreements (including a protocol document), limited permits, Federal certificates, inspections, and labeling requirements.
We are asking the Office of Management and Budget to approve our use of these information collection activities for 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
GIPSA intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve a 3-year extension of a currently approved information collection for the “Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) and under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA).” This approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
GIPSA will consider comments received by October 23, 2017.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Irene Omade, 202–720–8479.
Congress enacted the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) (7 U.S.C. 71–87k) and the Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627) to facilitate the marketing of grain, oilseeds, pulses, rice, and related commodities. These statutes provide for the establishment of standards and terms that accurately and consistently measure the quality of grain and related products, provide for uniform official inspection and weighing, provide regulatory and service responsibilities, and furnish the framework for commodity quality improvement incentives to both domestic and foreign buyers. GIPSA's Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) establishes policies, guidelines, and regulations to carry out the objectives of the USGSA and the AMA. Regulations appear at 7 CFR 800, 801, and 802 for the USGSA and 7 CFR 868 for the AMA.
The USGSA, with few exceptions, requires official inspection of export grain sold by grade. Official services are provided, upon request, for grain in domestic commerce. The AMA authorizes similar inspection and weighing services, upon request, for rice, pulses, flour, corn meal, and certain other agricultural products. Conversely, the regulations promulgated under the USGSA and the AMA require specific information collection and recordkeeping necessary to carry out requests for official services. Applicants for official services must specify the kind and level of service, the identification of the product, the location, the amount, and other pertinent information in order that official personnel can efficiently respond to their needs.
Official services under the USGSA are provided through FGIS field offices and delegated and/or designated State and private agencies. Delegated agencies are State agencies delegated authority under the USGSA to provide official inspection service, Class X or Class Y weighing services, or both, at one or more export port locations in the State.
Official services under the AMA are performed, upon request, on a fee basis for domestic and export shipments either by FGIS employees, individual contractors, or cooperators. Contractors are persons who enter into a contract with FGIS to perform specified sampling and inspection services. Cooperators are agencies or departments of the Federal Government which have an interagency agreement, State agencies, or other entities which have a reimbursable agreement with FGIS.
As required by the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) and its implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1)(i)), GIPSA specifically requests comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Office of the Secretary, Office of Civil Rights, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kathryn Anderson, 202–482–3680, or
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations at 29 CFR 1614.106 require that a Federal employee or applicant for Federal employment alleging discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or reprisal for protected activity must submit a signed statement that is
A paper form, signed by the complainant or his or her designated representative, must be submitted by mail or delivery service, email, in person, or by facsimile transmission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Kathryn Anderson, 202–482–3680, or
Pursuant to Executive Order 11478 and Department of Commerce Administrative Order (DAO) 215–11, an employee or applicant for employment with the Department of Commerce who alleges that he or she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment based on sexual orientation by the Department of Commerce or one of its sub-agencies, must submit a signed statement that is sufficiently precise to identify the actions or practices that form the basis of the complaint.
The complainant is also required to provide an address and telephone number where the complainant or his or her representative may be contacted. Through use of the standardized form (CD–545), the Office of Civil Rights proposes to collect the information required by the Executive Order and DAO in a uniform manner that will increase the efficiency of complaint processing and trend analyses of complaint activity.
A paper form, signed by the complainant or his/her designated representative, must be submitted by mail or delivery service, in person, or by facsimile transmission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Christopher Kemp, Office of Foreign-Trade Zones, (202) 482–0862, or email,
The Foreign-Trade Zone Annual Report is the vehicle by which Foreign-Trade Zone grantees report annually to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board, pursuant to the requirements of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a–81u). The annual reports submitted by grantees are the only complete source of compiled information on FTZs. The data and information contained in the reports relates to international trade activity in FTZs. The reports are used by the Congress and the Department to determine the economic effect of the FTZ program. The reports are also used by the FTZ Board and other trade policy officials to determine whether zone activity is consistent with U.S. international trade policy, and whether it is in the public interest. The public uses the information regarding activities carried out in FTZs to evaluate their effect on industry sectors. The information contained in annual reports also helps zone grantees in their marketing efforts. This is a request for a renewal of a currently approved information collection.
The Foreign-Trade Zone Annual Report is collected from zone grantees in a web-based, electronic format.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.
Applicable August 24, 2017.
Fred Baker at (202) 482–2924 (India), Edythe Artman at (202) 482–3931 or Moses Song at (202) 482–5041 (Italy), AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
The merchandise covered by these orders is finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. For a complete description of the scope of these orders, see Appendix of this notice.
As stated above, on August 14, 2017, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy.
As a result of the ITC's final affirmative determination, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.
We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated below. Accordingly, applicable August 17, 2017, the date of publication in the
Section 733(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.
Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India and Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after August 6, 2017, until and through August 16, 2017, the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins for each antidumping order are as follows:
This notice constitutes the
These orders are published in accordance with section and 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of these orders. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order.
While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure,
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:
(b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;
(ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;
(iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;
(iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;
(v) 3.10 percent of copper;
(vi) 0.38 percent of lead;
(vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;
(viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;
(ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;
(x) 1.55 percent of niobium;
(xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;
(xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;
(xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;
(xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;
(xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;
(xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;
(xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or
(xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.
Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on finished carbon steel flanges from India.
Applicable August 24, 2017.
Davina Friedmann at (202) 482–0698 or Erin Kearney at (202) 482–0167, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 29, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the countervailing duty investigation of finished carbon steel flanges from India.
The merchandise covered by this order is finished carbon steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of this order, see Appendix of this notice.
As stated above, on August 14, 2017, in accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India.
As a result of the ITC's final determination, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 29, 2016, the date of publication of the
Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. In the underlying investigation, the Department published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, we instructed CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to duties, unliquidated entries of finished carbon steel flanges from India made on or after March 29, 2017. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation on all entries of subject merchandise from India, applicable the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final affirmative injury determination in the
This
This order is published in accordance with section and 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of this order covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this order.
While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure,
(a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:
(b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and
(c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:
(i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;
(ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;
(iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;
(iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;
(v) 3.10 percent of copper;
(vi) 0.38 percent of lead;
(vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;
(viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;
(ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;
(x) 1.55 percent of niobium;
(xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;
(xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;
(xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;
(xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;
(xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;
(xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;
(xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or
(xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.
Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.
International Trade Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, SABIT, Attn: Tracey Rollins, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., 20230, (202) 482–0073,
The Special American Business Internship Training (SABIT) Program of the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA), is a key element in the U.S. Government's efforts to support the economic transition of Eurasia (the former Soviet Union) and to support economic growth in other regions of the world, including Pakistan, South Asia, and the Middle East, et al. SABIT develops and implements two- to three-week training programs for groups of up to 20 business and government professionals from Eurasia and other regions. These professionals meet with U.S. government agencies, non-governmental organizations and private sector companies in order to learn about various business practices and principles. This unique private sector-U.S. Government partnership was created in order to tap into the U.S. private sector's expertise and to assist developing regions in their transition to market-based economies while simultaneously boosting trade between the United States and other countries. Participant applications are needed to enable SABIT to find the most qualified participants for the training programs. Participant exit questionnaires provide insight as to what the participants have learned, and they are used to improve the content and administration of future programs. Alumni success story reports track the success of the program as regards to business ties between the U.S. and the countries SABIT covers.
The closing date for participant applications is based upon the starting date of the program and is published with the application, on the program's English-language Web site at
The SABIT Program has revised the collection instruments. The instruments are very similar to those used by SABIT in past years. However, some wording has been changed to reflect the changing needs of SABIT over time. The changes are relatively minor and most of them are rephrasing of wording. Instructions for filling out the form, methods of submission, and the order of questions have been revised on the Participant Application. These revisions are not expected to increase the response time to complete the instruments.
Participant applications are available for download from the SABIT English and Russian language Web sites at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection;
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for Letter of Authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the United States Air Force (USAF), Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) 96th Test Wing (AFMC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting testing and training activities in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) in the Gulf of Mexico over the course of five years, from February 4, 2018 through February 3, 2023. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of Eglin AFB's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on Eglin AFB's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than September 25, 2017.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225 and electronic comments should be sent
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
An electronic copy of Eglin AFB's application may be obtained online at:
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings for marine mammals shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such taking are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The NDAA of 2004 (Pub. L. 108–136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated earlier and amended the definition of harassment as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment). Eglin AFB has identified these testing and training activities as military readiness activities.
On April 23, 2012, NMFS promulgated a rulemaking and issued a Letter of Authorization (LOA) for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School (NEODS) training operations at Eglin AFB. This rule expired on April 24, 2017 (77 FR 16718, March 22, 2012). On March 5, 2014, NMFS promulgated rulemaking and issued a LOA for takes of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) precision strike weapons (PSW) and air-to-surface (AS) gunnery activities in the EGTTR, which is valid through March 4, 2019 (79 FR 13568, March 11, 2014). In addition to these rules and LOAs, NMFS has issued Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHA) for take of marine mammals incidental to Eglin AFB's Maritime Strike Operations (78 FR 52135, August 22, 2013; valid August 19, 2013 through August 18, 2014) and Maritime Weapons Systems Evaluations Program (WSEP) annually in 2015 (81 FR 7307) and 2016 (82 FR 10747). Eglin AFB complied with all conditions of the LOAs and IHAs issued, including submission of final reports. Based on these reports, NMFS has determined that impacts to marine mammals were not beyond those anticipated. On November 10, 2015, Eglin Natural Resources submitted an LOA request to consolidate all EGTTR activities into one authorization for five years. NMFS Office of Protected Resources planned to issue the EGTTR LOA by January 2017. However, it became apparent that the LOA would not be issued in time to cover February 2017 Maritime WSEP missions based on concerns associated with the acoustic model methodology and mission-day scenario versus per-detonation approach. Eglin Natural Resources requested and received a separate IHA (82 FR 10747, February 15, 2017) valid from February 4, 2017 through February 3, 2018 for those
Eglin AFB's current rulemaking/LOA application would also supersede the existing PSW and AS gunnery rule that is in effect until March 4, 2019, and would include all of Eglin AFB's testing and training activities, including WSEP activities, into one new rule with the exception of NEODS training activities. Eglin AFB has never conducted any NEODS training activities and is not including these activities as part of the new rulemaking.
On May 3, 2017, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from Eglin AFB requesting authorization for the take of marine mammals incidental to testing and training activities in the EGTTR (defined as the area and airspace over the Gulf of Mexico controlled by Eglin AFB, beginning at a point three nautical miles (nmi) off the coast of Florida) for a period of five years. These testing and training activities have the potential to result in take of marine mammals in the waters of the EGTTR. Therefore, Eglin AFB requests authorization to take two species of marine mammals that may occur in this area, Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (
Eglin AFB proposes the following actions in the EGTTR: (1) 86th Fighter Weapons Squadron (FWS) Maritime WSEP test missions that involve the use of multiple types of live and inert munitions (bombs and missiles) detonated above, at, or slightly below the water surface; (2) Advanced Systems Employment Project actions that involve deployment of a variety of pods, air-to-air missiles, bombs, and other munitions (all inert ordnances in relation to EGTTR); (3) AFSOC training, including air-to-surface gunnery missions involving firing live gunnery rounds at targets on the water surface in EGTTR, small diameter bomb (SDB) and Griffin/Hellfire missile training involving the use of live missiles and SDBs in the EGTTR against small towed boats, and CV–22 training involving the firing of 0.50 caliber (cal.)/7.62 mm ammunition at flares floating on the EGTTR water surface; (4) 413th Flight Test Squadron (FLTS) Precision Strike Program (PSP) activities involving firing munitions at flare targets on the EGTTR water surface and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM) testing involving captive-carry, store separation, and weapon employment tests; (5) 780th Test Squadron (TS) activities involving PSW test missions (launch of munitions against targets in the EGTTR) and Longbow Littoral Testing (data collection on tracking and impact ability of the Longbow missile on small boats); (6) 96th Test Wing Inert Missions (developmental testing and evaluation for wide variety of air-delivered weapons and other systems using inert bombs); and (7) 96 Operations Group (OG) missions, which involve the support of air-to-surface missions for several user groups within EGTTR.
During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. The actions include air-to-ground missiles (AGM); air intercept missiles (AIM); bomb dummy units (BDU); guided bomb units (GBU); projectile gun units (PGU); cluster bomb units (CBU); wind-corrected munitions dispensers (WCMD); (SDB) and laser small diameter bombs (LSDB); high explosive incendiary units (HEI); joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and laser joint direct attack munitions (LJDAM); research department explosives (RDX); joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles (JASSM); high altitude anti-submarine warfare weapons (inert); high-speed maneuverable surface targets; and gunnery rounds. Net explosive weight (NEW) of the live munitions ranges from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb).
Eglin AFB testing and training activities involving live munitions are summarized in Table 1.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning Eglin AFB's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting (conference call).
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Coastal Pelagic Species Advisory Subpanel (CPSAS) will hold a meeting via conference call that is open to the public.
The conference call will be held Wednesday, September 6, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. or until business for the day has been completed.
The meeting will be held via conference call. To attend the conference call, dial this toll free number: (866) 692–4538; enter participant code 2366028. A public listening station is available at the Pacific Council office (address below).
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820–2409.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss items on the Pacific Council's September 2017 meeting agenda. Major topics include, but are not limited to, (1) a draft Terms of Reference for the 2018 review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820–2411 at least 10 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) Worldwide Americas, Inc., on behalf of BBC Natural History Unit, 28 Whiteladies Rd, Bristol, UK, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial or educational photography on Weddell Seals (
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376.
Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713–0376, or by email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.
Lisa Lierheimer or Sara Young, (301) 427–8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to film Weddell seals at various locations in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, between October and December 2017. Up to 16 Weddell seals (8 mother pup-pairs from birth through weaning) could be targeted and disturbed during filming activities on the sea ice, underwater (scuba divers), and by air (drone). Up to 80 Weddell seals (non-targeted animals in the colony) could be incidentally disturbed during the filming activities. Footage would be used for the BBC television series “Seven Worlds,” to showcase Antarctica and will include a segment featuring Weddell seals. The permit would be valid through December 2017.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team (BS FEP) will meet September 5–7, 2017.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 5 through Thursday, September 7, 2017. The meeting will be held on September 5, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.; September 6, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and September 7, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 4600 Sand Point Way, Building 4, Room 2039, Seattle, WA 98115. It will also be held via teleconference: (907) 271–2896. Listening only for non-team members.
Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271–2809.
The BS FEP agenda will consist of continuing to develop the Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, including (a) review sections of the core FEP document, (b) review progress on action modules, and (c) discuss next steps. A full agenda is available at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271–2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.
Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Approval for the South Slough, Oregon National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan revision.
The notice is hereby given that the Stewardship Division, Office for
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a federal-state partnership administered by NOAA. The system protects more than 1.3 million acres of estuarine habitat for long-term research, monitoring, education, and stewardship throughout the coastal United States. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, each Reserve is managed by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners. NOAA provides funding and national programmatic guidance.
The revised Management Plan outlines the administrative structure; the Reserve's science and education programs; public uses; resource protection plan; and the plans for future land acquisition and facility development to support Reserve operations.
The South Slough Reserve takes an integrated approach to management, linking research, education, coastal training, public involvement, and stewardship functions. The Reserve has outlined how it will manage administration and its core program providing detailed actions that will enable it to accomplish specific goals and objectives. Since the last Management Plan, the Reserve has built out its core programs and monitoring infrastructure; conducted an educational market analysis and needs assessment to better meet teacher needs; developed a Reserve Disaster Response Plan; and improved public access to the Reserve through construction of a new paddle launch, enhancements to the visitor center, and new water and land trails.
On April 14, 2017, NOAA issued a notice of a thirty (30) day public comment period for the South Slough Reserve revised plan (82 FR 17974). Responses to the public comments received, and an explanation of how comments were incorporated into the final revised plan, are available in Appendix H of the revised plan.
The revised Management Plan will serve as the guiding document for the 4,771-acre South Slough Reserve. View the South Slough, Oregon Reserve Management Plan at
Bree Turner at (206) 526–4641 or Erica Seiden at (301) 563–1172 of NOAA's National Ocean Service, Stewardship Division, Office for Coastal Management, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM5, 10th floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0245, using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Tom Ruckdaschel, 571–372–6088.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7000, Hardship Conditions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(a) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer of unusual conditions associated with loading or unloading a particular cargo, for potential adjustment of contract labor rates; and to submit any associated request for price adjustment to the contracting officer within 10 working days of the vessel sailing time.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7001, Price Adjustment, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(b) for use in solicitations and contracts when using sealed bidding to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the clause require the contractor to notify the contracting officer of certain changes in the wage rates or benefits that apply to its direct labor employees. Paragraph (g) of the clause requires the contractor to include with its final invoice a statement that the contractor has experienced no decreases in rates of pay for labor or has notified the contracting officer of all such decreases.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7002, Revision of Prices, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(c) for use in solicitations and contracts when using negotiation to acquire stevedoring services. Paragraph (c) of the clause provides that, at any time, either the contracting officer or the contractor may deliver to the other a written demand that the parties negotiate to revise the prices under the contract. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires that, if either party makes such a demand, the contractor must submit relevant data upon which to base negotiations.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7007, Liability and Insurance, is prescribed at DFARS 247.270–4(g) for use in all solicitations and contracts for the acquisition of stevedoring services. Paragraph (f) of the clause requires the contractor to furnish the contracting officer with satisfactory evidence of insurance.
The provision at DFARS 252.247–7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(a) for use in all solicitations except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services or those with an anticipated value at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. Paragraph (b) of the provision requires the offeror to represent whether or not it anticipates that supplies will be transported by sea in the performance of any contract or subcontract resulting from the solicitation.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7023, Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(b) for use in all solicitations and contracts except those for direct purchase of ocean transportation services. Paragraph (d) of the clause requires the contractor to submit any requests for use of other than U.S.-flag vessels in writing to the contracting officer. Paragraph (e) of the clause requires the contractor to submit one copy of the rated on board vessel operating carrier's ocean bill of landing. Paragraph (f) of the clause, if the contract exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, requires the contractor to represent, with its final invoice, that: (1) No ocean transportation was used in the performance of the contract; (2) only U.S.-flag vessels were used for all ocean shipments under the contract; (3) the contractor had the written consent of the contracting officer for all non-U.S.-flag ocean transportation; or (4) shipments were made on non-U.S.-flag vessels without the written consent of the contracting officer. Contractors must flow down these requirements to noncommercial subcontracts and certain types of commercial subcontracts. Subcontracts at or below the simplified acquisition threshold are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (f) stated above.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7024, Notification of Transportation of Supplies by Sea, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(c) for use in all contracts, for which the offeror represented, by completion of the provision at DFARS 252.247–7022, that it did not anticipate transporting any supplies by sea in performance of the contract. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires the contractor to notify the contracting officer if the contractor learns, after award of the contract, that supplies will be transported by sea.
The clause at DFARS 252.247–7026, Evaluation Preference for Use of Domestic Shipyards—Applicable to Acquisition of Carriage by Vessel for DoD Cargo in the Coastwise or Noncontiguous Trade, is prescribed at DFARS 247.574(e) in solicitations that require a covered vessel for carriage of cargo for DoD. Paragraph (c) of the clause requires the offeror to provide information with its offer, addressing all covered vessels for which overhaul, repair, and maintenance work has been performed during the period covering the current calendar year, up to the date of proposal submission, and the preceding four calendar years.
The clause at DFARS 252.247.7028, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions, is prescribed at DFARS 247.207(2) for inclusion in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, when shipping under Bills of Lading and Domestic Route Order under FOB origin contract, Export Traffic Release regardless of FOB terms, or foreign military sales shipments. Paragraph (a) of the clause requires contractors to complete DD Form 1659, Application for U.S. Government Shipping Documentation/Instructions to request shipping instructions, unless an automated system is available (paragraph (b) of the clause).
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice and request for comments regarding a proposed extension of an approved information collection requirement.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DoD announces the proposed extension of a public information collection requirement and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof.
DoD will consider all comments received by October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control Number 0704–0497, using any of the following methods:
○
○
○
○
Comments received generally will be posted without change to
Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571–372–6099.
The purpose of this information collection is to improve the efficiency of the negotiations process by ensuring the submission of thorough, accurate, and complete forward pricing rate proposals. If the contracting officer determines that a forward pricing rate proposal should be obtained pursuant to FAR 42.1701, then contractors following the commercial contract cost principles in FAR subpart 31.2 will be required to submit a forward pricing rate proposal that complies with FAR 15.408, Table 15–2, and DFARS 215.403–5 and 215.407–5–70. The forward pricing rate proposal adequacy checklist at Table 215.403–5(b)(3) is used by the contracting officer and the contractor to ensure the proposal is complete. The completed forward pricing rate proposal adequacy checklist will be submitted to DoD with the forward pricing rate proposal.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, September 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m.
Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.
Jennifer McCloskey, Federal Coordinator, EMAB (EM–4.3), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone (301) 903–7427; fax (202) 586–0293 or email:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on August 17, 2017, pursuant to Rule 202 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2017), Sendero Carlsbad NGL, LLC filed a petition for temporary waiver of the tariff filing and reporting requirements for liquids pipelines the Commission regulates under sections 6 and 20 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app 6, 20 (1988), and 18 CFR parts 341 and 357 of the Commission's regulations, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
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 application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
In November 2015, the Commission issued Woodland Pulp a new license to operate and maintain the Forest City Project. In December 2016, Woodland Pulp filed an application to surrender its new license and decommission the project by removing the gates located on the United States side of the spillway. The Commission is considering the licensee's surrender and decommissioning proceeding in Project No. 2660–028.
On July 24, 2017, Governor LePage of Maine signed into law a resolve authorizing Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (Maine DIFW) to assume ownership of the Forest City Dam pursuant to two conditions: (1) The Commission finds that the Forest City Project will not require a license from the Commission if Maine DIFW owns the U.S. portion of the dam; and (2) Maine DIFW executes an agreement with Woodland Pulp that provides that Woodland Pulp and its successors will operate and maintain the Forest City Dam consistent with the manner in which the dam was operated in most recent 12 months, at the direction of the State, and at no cost to the State, for a period of 15 years. On July 27, 2017, Maine DIFW and Woodland Pulp executed an operation and management agreement.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for the Millville Hydroelectric Project, located on the Shenandoah River, near the town of Harpers Ferry in Jefferson County, West Virginia, and has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (draft EA) for the project. The project does not occupy federal land.
In the draft EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental effects of relicensing the project and conclude that continued project operation under a new license, with appropriate measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
A copy of the draft EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
You may also register online at
For further information, please contact Michael Spencer by telephone at (202) 502–6093 or by email at
Take notice that on August 10, 2017, Bonneville Power Administration submitted a Second Errata to its July 31, 2017 tariff filing per: BP–18 Power and Transmission Rates.
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
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Fairburn Expansion Project, proposed by Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC (Southern) in the above-referenced docket. Southern requests authorization to acquire, upgrade, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline and compression facilities in Clayton, Cobb, Fayetteville, Fulton, and Monroe Counties, Georgia. The project would provide approximately 343 million cubic feet per day of new firm transportation capacity to delivery points in Southern's Zone 2 and Zone 3 systems.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Fairburn Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participated as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
The proposed Fairburn Expansion Project includes the following facilities in Georgia:
• One new 4.9-mile-long 30-inch-diameter Fairburn Lateral pipeline, extending from the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company interconnect in Fayette County to a new proposed 18,000-horsepower electric Fairburn Compressor Station with pig
• one 1.6-mile-long 30-inch-diameter South Main 2nd Loop
• acquisition of the 19.7-mile-long 30-inch-diameter McDonough Lateral pipeline that extends from Southern's existing SNG-to-McDonough Meter Station in Fulton County to the proposed Plant McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County;
• a new Plant McDonough Meter Station in Cobb County; a SNG-to-McDonough Meter Station modification in Fulton County; and a new UPS Meter Station in Fulton County, all located on the McDonough Lateral;
• one new Transco-to-SNG Meter Station with pig launcher in Fayette County; and
• modification of the Jonesboro Meter Station in Clayton County.
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 September 18, 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 (CP17–46–000) 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
Take notice that on August 1, 2017, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural), at 3250 Lacey Road, Downers Grove, IL 60615, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the above referenced docket a petition to amend its certificate of public convenience and necessity in Docket No. CP11–547–000 for its 2012 Storage Optimization Project. Natural proposes to change the abandon of certain facilities at Compressor Station 310 (CS 310) located in Clinton County, Illinois, and Compressor Station 311 (CS 311) located in Piatt County, Illinois. Natural proposes to retain certain compressor units at CS 310 and CS 311 to reserve as redundant compression. These reserve units will only run if other units at these stations experience mechanical problems. Natural has previously received authority to abandon these units in place. Natural's filing is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. Any questions regarding this petition to amend should be directed Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515, or by calling (630)725–3070 (telephone)
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental analysis (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 5 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 18, 2017.
1.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than September 7, 2017.
A.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend, with revision, the mandatory Banking Organization Systemic Risk Report (FR Y–15; OMB No. 7100–0352).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 23, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395–6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452–3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263–4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on all aspects of the proposal, including the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposal prior to giving final approval.
Most of the data collected on the FR Y–15 is made public unless a specific request for confidentiality is submitted by the reporting entity, either on the FR Y–15 or on the form from which the data item is obtained.
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 order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2017.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Armando Irizarry (202–326–2964), 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 August 18, 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 September 19, 2017. Write “In the Matter of National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. File No. 1510138” 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 National
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 September 19, 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, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Agreement”) from the National Association of Animal Breeders, Inc. (“NAAB”). NAAB is a trade association of cattle artificial insemination firms.
Dairy production in the United States is dependent on volume from more than 9.3 million cows, the market for which relies on services provided by NAAB member breeders. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with partial funding from the NAAB through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”), developed a new technology that is the best indicator of genetic merit of dairy bulls for use in artificial insemination in so far as yielding higher producing dairy cows. The Commission's complaint (“Complaint”) alleges that NAAB violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by restraining competition among its regular members in the use of this new technology, which dampened competition in the market for dairy bulls used for semen production.
This matter reaffirms the longstanding rule that trade associations composed of members that compete among themselves, while typically serving important and procompetitive functions, must not adopt rules or regulations that unreasonably limit competition among their members. It also illustrates that industry groups that obtain valuable and unique technology from the government may not establish rules or regulations regarding that technology that unreasonably restrain competition.
The Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested members of the public. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the Consent Agreement and comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw, modify, or make the Consent Agreement final.
The Consent Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by NAAB that it has violated the law as alleged in the Complaint or that the facts alleged in the Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.
The purpose of this Analysis to Aid Public Comment is to invite and facilitate public comment. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and the accompanying Proposed Order, or in any way modify their terms.
The Complaint makes the following allegations.
NAAB is a non-profit corporation with about 24 regular members that compete among themselves and with others in the business of collecting, processing, freezing, marketing or selling dairy cattle semen for artificial insemination. NAAB's members buy dairy bulls from dairy farmers and breeders to produce semen for artificial insemination. NAAB members together account for more than 90 percent of dairy cattle semen sales in the United States.
In September 2006, NAAB entered into a CRADA with the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) to cooperate with a USDA laboratory in a project for developing the genomic testing technology described above. The CRADA granted NAAB exclusive access to the results of the CRADA project until February 2013. The CRADA did not restrain in any way the ability of NAAB or its members to use the new technology or to sell access to it, nor did it authorize NAAB or its members to adopt rules that restrain in any way the ability of its members to use the new technology or to sell access to it.
By April 2008, the USDA laboratory had developed the new technology, known as the Genomic Predicted Transmitting Ability (“GPTA”), which analyzes the genetics of a dairy bull to predict the ability of the bull to transmit commercially important traits, such as milk yield, to its daughters. This new technology is superior to the traditional method of evaluating dairy bulls for semen production, and it became the best indicator of a dairy bull's
In October 2008, more than two years after entering into the CRADA, NAAB approved a resolution that regulated its members' access to the new technology during the exclusivity period granted by the CRADA (through February 2013). NAAB acted as a combination of its members when it approved the resolution.
The resolution required that for a NAAB member to obtain the GPTA of a dairy bull, the Member had to have one of the following interests in the bull: (a) Own the bull, (b) have an agreement to purchase at least a 30 percent interest in the bull, (c) have a lease on the bull, or (d) have an exclusive marketing agreement for the bull. The USDA laboratory was the only source of GPTAs during the exclusivity period.
The Complaint alleges that NAAB's resolution harmed competition by diminishing competition for dairy bulls used for semen production. First, it impeded the development of a market in which dairy farmers and breeders could pay NAAB members to obtain GPTAs for their dairy bulls. Second, the resolution limited NAAB members from obtaining the GPTA of bulls in which they did not already have a financial interest. Access to a bull's GPTA prior to buying or selling it would tend to increase competition and drive the price of the bull toward a value that more accurately reflects its ability to yield higher producing dairy cows. After the exclusivity period expired in February 2013, GPTAs became available for a fee through an industry organization.
The Complaint alleges that the purpose, effect, tendency or capacity of the resolution was to restrain competition unreasonably among NAAB's Members, and that this conduct injured dairy farmers and breeders by depriving them of the benefits of free and open competition. Therefore, the resolution constitutes an unfair method of competition that violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The Proposed Order has the following substantive provisions. Paragraph II requires NAAB to cease and desist from restraining the ability of its members to obtain, disclose, provide, use or sell any technology or information resulting from research projects conducted by, or pursuant to, an agreement to which NAAB is a party. The Proposed Order also prohibits NAAB from restraining price-related competition among its members relating to the sale or acquisition of bulls or bull semen.
A proviso to Paragraph II specifies that the Proposed Order does not prohibit NAAB from engaging in any conduct that is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits or efficiencies relating to NAAB's operation or to the operation of its members, provided that such benefits or efficiencies likely would offset the anticompetitive harms.
Paragraph III requires that, for five years, NAAB notify the Commission if it adopts or modifies any regulation that restrains the ability of its members to obtain disclose, provide, sell or use any technology or information resulting from any research project.
Paragraph V of the Proposed Order requires that NAAB implement an antitrust compliance program to ensure compliance with the Proposed Order and the antitrust laws.
Paragraphs IV and VI–VIII of the Proposed Order impose certain standard reporting and compliance requirements on NAAB.
By direction of the Commission.
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 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by September 25, 2017.
When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
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.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Given the innovative nature of Exchanges and the statutorily-prescribed relationship between the Secretary and States in their development and operation, it is critical that the Secretary work closely with States to provide necessary guidance and technical assistance to ensure that States can meet the prescribed timelines, federal requirements, and goals of the statute and the grants awarded to them.
2.
3.
The burden estimates for the data collection requirements included in this package reflect the time and effort for QHP issuers to update and publish the appropriate data, and submit it to CMS.
4.
This Information Collection Request (ICR) serves as the formal request for a new data collection associated with the HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2018 Final Rule (2018 Payment Notice). This ICR includes information collection requirements related to the ability of states to permit agents and brokers to assist qualified individuals, qualified employers, or qualified employees enrolling in Qualified Health Plans in the Federally Facilitated Exchange (§ 155.220) and ICRs related to non-exchange entities (§ 155.260).
This announcement is a request for continued approval of the information collection system, the Reviewer Recruitment Module (RRM). CB uses a web-based data collection form and database to gather critical reviewer information in drop down menu format for data such as: Degree, occupation, affiliations with organizations and institutions that serve special populations, and demographic information that may be voluntarily provided by a potential reviewer.
These data elements help CB find and select expert grant reviewers for objective review committees. The web-based system permits reviewers to access and update their information at will and as needed. The RRM is accessible by the general public via
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chap 35), the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. Email address:
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
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 “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act” (draft trading partner guidance). FDA is issuing this guidance to assist industry and State and local governments in understanding how to categorize the entities in the drug supply chain in accordance with the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). This guidance explains how to determine when certain statutory requirements will apply to entities that may be considered trading partners in the drug supply chain. FDA is also soliciting public input specific to the activities of “private-label distributors” of drug products and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners.
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 October 23, 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 (CBER), 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
Melissa Mannion, 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,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Identifying Trading Partners Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” The DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113–54) establishes new requirements to develop and enhance drug distribution security by 2023. It does this, in part, by defining different types of entities in the drug supply chain as
In addition to comments on the draft guidance generally, FDA is requesting comments specifically related to the activities of private-label distributors (PLDs), and whether those activities fall within the definitions under DSCSA of the various trading partners. FDA considers a PLD to be an entity that owns and distributes a manufactured product under its own label or trade name. Because there are many different business models for PLDs, resulting in situations where a PLD could be considered a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or dispenser, we are asking for comments on how the different business models might impact a PLD's status as an authorized trading partner under the DSCSA.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (see 21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Identifying Trading Partners under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.” 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.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at either
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS.
Notice of Supplemental Award.
HRSA announces the award of supplemental grants under the Zika Response and Preparedness Act to the territorial health departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands to address the unmet needs of women, children, and families who are or may be affected by Zika virus (ZIKV) infection.
Funding for these awards is available under the Zika Response and Preparedness Act through Special Projects of Regional and National Significance (SPRANS) funds.
The needs of infants and children affected by ZIKV are complex. Families, health care providers, and public health professionals will be required to work together to assure that community-based, comprehensive, high quality health and social services are available to these children. The support system must address the medical needs of these children, such as regularly screening children who may not be symptomatic at birth; coordinate care through a medical home; finance care needed by children and families; link to community-based services; partner with families; and eventually address transition to adult services. Following HRSA's December 2016 grant awards to the territorial health departments of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and U.S. Virgin Islands, recipients continued to identify pregnant women and infants with lab evidence of ZIKV infection that led them to refine their response to ZIKV. HRSA's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) received information from the territorial health departments of unmet needs in their response to ZIKV through monitoring site visits, regular communication, and prior approval requests. Needs identified by recipients included additional equipment, personnel, and transportation services. With further analysis of other federal funding and the current epidemiologic data, MCHB confirmed additional funding is essential to ensure access to services and a comprehensive medical home for women, children, and families who are or may be affected by ZIKV infection. Disease burden and the significant increase in pregnant women and children with lab evidence of ZIKV infection in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands was also considered as a factor in determining the allocation of funds to the territories to address unmet needs. The period of performance of the supplemental award will be September 2017 through December 2019.
Maria Paz Carlos, Division of State and Community Health, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N104A, Rockville, Maryland 20857;
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR must be received no later than September 25, 2017.
Submit your comments, including the ICR Title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference, in compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 and/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92–463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will meet in person and via web conference on September 19, 2017, from 9:30am to 5:00pm EDT and September 20, 2017, from 9:30am to 2:00pm EDT.
The Board will meet in open session on September 19, 2017, from 9:30am to 12:45pm to provide updates on the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, present a study on the degradation of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) in urine and oral fluid specimens, results from the opioid implementation performance testing (PT) samples, lessons learned from the pilot PT program for oral fluid, and the detection of opioid glucuronides in drug user hair. Public comments are welcome. If you intend to provide public comments, please register and provide a summary of your comments to the contact listed below. The Division of Workplace Programs will review public comments to ensure that they address the topics scheduled to be discussed during the meeting and adhere to the meeting's established time limits for public comments.
The board will meet in closed session on September 19, 2017, from 2:00pm to 5:00pm EDT and on September 20, 2017, from 9:30am to 2:00pm EDT to hear about current confidential practices in the hair testing industry and to discuss proposed revisions of the Oral Fluid Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs. These portions of the meeting are closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (9)(B), and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
To obtain the web conference call-in numbers and access codes, registration can be completed online at
Meeting information and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Advisory Committees Web site,
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice; correction.
The Coast Guard is correcting a notice that appeared in the
If you have questions about this notice, contact Wayne Lundy, Office of Design and Engineering Standards, USCG, by telephone at (202) 372–1379 or email:
In the
In FR Notice Doc. No. 2017–16694, published August 8, 2017, at 82 FR 37104, make the following corrections:
1. On page 37105 in the second column under “Registration”, correct the phrase “$325 USD if submitted on or before October 2, 2017 and $375 USD if submitted after October 2, 2017” to read “$490 USD if submitted on or before October 15, 2017 and $540 USD if registering on-site.”
2. Following the words “if registering on-site”, from the correction in paragraph 1 above, add the following sentence:
“In addition, registered attendees may receive a certificate from ASME following the workshop that awards Professional Development Hours for attendance at all sessions over the 2-day period.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Final Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Privacy Office, DHS.
Committee management; notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, in Washington, DC The meeting will be open to the public.
The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday, September 19, 2017, from 12:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Please note that the meeting may end early if the Committee has completed its business.
The meeting will be held both in person in Washington, DC at 90 K Street NE., 12th Floor, Room 1204 A&B, Washington, DC, 20002, and via online forum (URL will be posted on the Privacy Office Web site in advance of the meeting at
To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the “Supplementary Information” section below. A public comment period will be held during the meeting from 3:20 p.m.—3:30 p.m., and speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes. If you would like to address the Committee at the meeting, we request that you register in advance by contacting Sandra Taylor at the address provided below or sign up at the registration desk on the day of the meeting. The names and affiliations, if any, of individuals who address the Committee are included in the public record of the meeting. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Written comments should be sent to Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, by September 11, 2017. Persons who wish to submit comments and who are not able to attend or speak at the meeting may submit comments at any time. All submissions must include the Docket Number (DHS–2017–0043) and may be submitted by any
•
•
•
•
If you wish to attend the meeting, please bring a government issued photo I.D. and plan to arrive at 90 K Street NE., 12th Floor, Room 1204 A&B, Washington, DC no later than 12:35 p.m. The DHS Privacy Office encourages you to register for the meeting in advance by contacting Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, at
Sandra Taylor, Designated Federal Officer, DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0655, Washington, DC 20528, by telephone (202) 343–1717, by fax (202) 343–4010, or by email to
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Title 5, U.S.C., appendix. The DHS Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee provides advice at the request of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the DHS Chief Privacy Officer on programmatic, policy, operational, administrative, and technological issues within DHS that relate to personally identifiable information, as well as data integrity and other privacy-related matters. The Committee was established by the Secretary of Homeland Security under the authority of 6 U.S.C. 451.
During the meeting, the Chief Privacy Officer will provide remarks to the Committee and the Deputy Chief Privacy Officer will provide an update on the activities of the Privacy Office since the last meeting. The Committee will also receive briefings on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Biometric Travel Security Initiatives and the DHS Office of Policy's Immigration Data Initiative. The Committee will also receive two taskings. The final agenda will be posted on or before September 5, 2017, on the Committee's Web site at
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on Tin- and Chromium-Coated Steel Sheet from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the review will be established and announced at a later date.
August 4, 2017.
Robert Casanova (202–708–2719), 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 this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On August 4, 2017, the Commission determined that it should proceed to a full review in the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that both the domestic and respondent interested party group responses to its notice of institution (82 FR 20378, May 1, 2017) were adequate. A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, U.S. International Trade Commission has submitted a 30-day Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery ” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
Comments must be submitted September 29, 2017.
Written comments should be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Room 10102 (Docket Library), Washington DC 20503,
To request additional information, please contact Jeremy Wise at 202–205–3190.
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 to 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.
The U.S. International Trade commission received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
Below we provide the U.S. International trade Commission's projected average estimates for the next three years:
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 Office of Management and Budget control number.
By order of the Commission.
Notice.
Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Agreement and Undertaking (OWCP–1). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice. 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.
You may submit comments by mail, delivery service, or by hand to Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S–3323, Washington, DC 20210; by fax to (202) 354–9647; or by Email to
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95).
* 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,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
The Legal Services Corporation's Finance Committee will meet telephonically on August 31, 2017. The meeting will commence at 3:15 p.m., EDT, and will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.
John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007.
Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the
• Call toll-free number: 1–866–451–4981;
• When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.
• When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.
Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public.
Open.
Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295–1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to
LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295–1500 or
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by September 25, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740–6001, by phone at (301) 837–1799, or by email at
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s)
1. Department of Education, Federal Student Aid (DAA–0441–2016–0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system relating to the administration of Federal student loan accounts.
2. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (DAA–0568–2017–0013, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to detect radiation in shipments and other conveyances arriving in U.S. ports.
3. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA–0567–2015–0015, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to detention center inspections and sexual abuse prevention policy development. Proposed for permanent retention are national detention center standards.
4. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA–0567–2017–0002, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used to manage immigration status inquiries and responses involving Federal, state, local, tribal, and international criminal justice agencies.
5. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA–0567–2017–0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to national detention center standards development and implementation.
6. Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, Agency-wide (DAA–0220–2017–0013, 9 items, 3 temporary items). Records related to Commission meetings, hearings, the Commissioner's report, working papers, and daily staff activities. Proposed for permanent retention are records documenting public input, meeting materials, and the final Commissioner's report.
7. National Archives and Records Administration, Research Services (N2–456–16–1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of the Defense Mapping Agency including digital database files and digital radar landmass simulation files. These records were accessioned to the National Archives without the required documentation to access/use data. The records are unreadable and thus lack sufficient historical value to warrant continued preservation.
National Capital Planning Commission.
Notice of Members of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board.
The current United States Code or its supplement requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRB) to review, evaluate and make a final recommendation on performance appraisals assigned to individual members of the agency's Senior Executive Service (SES). The PRB established for the National Capital Planning Commission also makes recommendations to the agency head regarding SES performance awards, rank awards and bonuses. The current United States Code or its supplement also requires that notice of appointment of Performance Review Board members be published in the
The following persons have been appointed to serve as members of the Performance Review Board for the National Capital Planning Commission: Vicki Barber, Mary John, Paige Cottinghamstreater, and Christopher J. Roscetti from October 23, 2017 to October 22, 2019.
Deborah Young, Administrative Officer, National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004, (202) 482–7228.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of extension.
A call for nominations was published by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the
The nomination period for the notice published June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28533) is extended. Nominations for the Health Care Administrator position are due on or before October 5, 2017.
Ms. Sophie Holiday, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; (301) 415–7865;
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft regulatory guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft regulatory guide (DG), DG–3053, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores.” This DG would be published as Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 3.71. The proposed revision would provide methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for criticality safety standards used with nuclear materials outside reactor cores. The revision would provide up-to-date guidance based on changes to American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS)-8 standards. The revision would also endorse International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7753:1987, “Nuclear Energy—Performance and Testing Requirements for Criticality Detection and Alarm Systems.”
Submit comments by October 23, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on accessing information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Christopher Tripp, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301–415–8741, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0183 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publically-available information related to this action, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–0183 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials Outside Reactor Cores,” is a proposed revision temporarily identified by its task number, DG–3053. The DG–3053 is proposed Revision 3 of RG 3.71, “Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Nuclear Materials outside Reactor Cores.” The NRC initially issued RG 3.71 in 1998, and it was revised in 2005 and again in 2010. The three previous versions of RG 3.71 endorsed specific safety standards developed by ANSI/ANS–8 to provide guidance, criteria, and best practices for use in preventing and mitigating criticality accidents during operations that involve handling, processing, storing, or transporting special nuclear material at fuel and material facilities (or a combination of these activities). The proposed Revision 3 would revise the RG based on changes to ANSI/ANS–8 standards, with certain exceptions and clarifications. The revision would also consolidate and replace a number of earlier NRC RGs, thereby incorporating all of the relevant guidance in a single document. This revision would also endorse International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 7753:1987, “Nuclear Energy—Performance and Testing Requirements for Criticality Detection and Alarm Systems.” In addition, the scope of this revision is expanded beyond part 70 of title 10 of the
This DG–3053 would update RG 3.71 based on changes to ANSI/ANS standards, as well as endorsing an ISO standard and expanding the scope of the RG to include 10 CFR part 71 and part 72 licensees. Issuance of DG–3053 would not constitute backfitting under 10 CFR part 70 or part 72. As discussed in the “Implementation” section of this DG, the NRC has no current intention to impose the DG on current holders of 10 CFR part 70 or part 72 licenses. The DG could be applied to applications for licenses issued under 10 CFR part 70 or part 72 or amendments thereto. Such action would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62, inasmuch as such applicants are not within the scope of entities protected by 10 CFR 70.76 or 10 CFR 72.62.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on August 18, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would amend provisions in NSCC's Rules and Procedures (“Rules”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would (1) amend provisions in the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge, which NSCC currently imposes on each NSCC member (“Member”),
NSCC uses a risk-based margin methodology to assess Required Deposits from all Members. The Required Deposit is comprised of a number of risk-based component charges, including the CNS Fails Charge, which are calculated and assessed daily. The objective of the Required Deposit is to mitigate potential losses to NSCC associated with the liquidation of the Member's portfolio if NSCC ceases to act for a Member.
When a Member does not satisfy its obligation to either pay the net settlement proceeds or deliver the securities due by the applicable Settlement Date, NSCC, as a central counterparty, is exposed to credit and market risks. Such exposures generally increase when the Member's risk of default increases, as reflected by the Member's credit rating derived from the Credit Risk Rating Matrix.
This proposed rule change would amend the Rules regarding the CNS Fails Charge. Specifically, where certain percentages are used to calculate the CNS Fails Charge for a Member, the proposed rule change would amend the Rules to include such specific percentages. In doing so, the proposed rule change would add transparency as well as clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of this existing margin charge.
For a Member with CNS Fails Positions, the CNS Fails Charge is calculated by multiplying the Current Market Value for such Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions by a percentage. For a Member that is rated 1 through 4 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the CNS Fails Charge is 5 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions. For a Member that is rated 5 or 6 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, the CNS Fails Charge is 10 percent of the Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions. For a Member that is rated 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, NSCC is currently charging such Member 20 percent of the Member's
NSCC is proposing to amend Rule 1 to add a definition for CNS Fails Position. The proposed definition would provide that the term “CNS Fails Position” means either a Long Position or a Short Position that did not settle on the Settlement Date.
NSCC is also proposing to amend Procedure XV, Section I.(A)(1)(f) to provide that a Member's contribution to the Clearing Fund shall include an amount that is calculated by multiplying the Current Market Value for such Member's aggregate CNS Fails Positions by (i) 5 percent for Members rated 1 through 4 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, (ii) 10 percent for Members rated 5 or 6 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix, or (iii) 20 percent for Members rated 7 on the Credit Risk Rating Matrix.
NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, NSCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires that the Rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of NSCC or for which it is responsible.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(4) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to effectively identify, measure, monitor and manage its credit exposures to participants and those exposures arising from its payment, clearing and settlement processes.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(6)(i) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to cover its credit exposures to its Members by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum, considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio and market.
Rule 17Ad–22(e)(23)(i) under the Act requires NSCC to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to publicly disclose all relevant rules and material procedures.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change to amend the provisions in the Rules relating to the CNS Fails Charge would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change to clarify NSCC's current practices with respect to the assessment and collection of the CNS Fails Charge would impact competition.
Written comments relating to this proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by NSCC.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 4, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6) to exclude the following types of index components from certain generic listing requirements applicable to an index underlying Equity Index-Linked Securities: (1) Investment Company Units (“Units”);
• Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, each underlying index must have at least ten component securities. The Exchange would modify this requirement to reflect no minimum number of index components if one or more issues of Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities constitute, at least in part, component securities underlying an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities.
• Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, each component security must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million, except that the market value for each of the lowest dollar-weighted component securities in the index that in the aggregate account for no more than 10% of the dollar weight of the index may be at least $50 million. The Exchange proposes to exclude Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities from those minimum market value requirements, as well as to exclude from the calculation of the aggregate dollar value of the index the market value(s) of all components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities.
• Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the underlying index each must have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 1,000,000 shares or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $25,000,000, averaged over the last six months. The Exchange proposes to apply those requirements only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities, and would exclude components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities from the calculation of the index's weight.
• Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, no component security may represent more than 25% of the dollar weight of the index and the five highest dollar-weighted component securities in the index may not in the aggregate account for more than 50%, or 60% for an index consisting of fewer than 25 component securities, of the dollar weight of the index.
• Currently, for an issue of Equity Index-Linked Securities to qualify for initial listing, 90% of the underlying index's numerical value, and at least 80% of the total number of component securities, must meet the then current criteria for standardized option trading set forth in NYSE Arca Rule 5.3–O; except that an index will not be subject to this requirement if (1) no underlying component security represents more than 10% of the dollar weight of the index, and (2) the index has a minimum of 20 components. The Exchange proposes to apply this requirement only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities and, for purposes of this requirement would exclude all components that are a Derivative Securities Product or Index-Linked Security from the calculations of the index's numerical value, total number of components, and dollar value.
• Currently, on a continuous basis, component stocks that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the index each must have a minimum global monthly trading volume of 500,000 shares, or minimum global notional volume traded per month of $12,500,000, averaged over the last six months. The Exchange proposes to apply those requirements only to index components that are not Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities, and would exclude components that are Derivative Securities Products or Index-Linked Securities from the calculation of the index's total weight.
The Exchange also proposes non-substantive changes to the text of NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(6).
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
In support of its proposal, the Exchange notes that Derivative Securities Products are excluded from consideration when determining whether the components of Units satisfy the applicable listing criteria in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2–E(j)(3),
Specifically, the Exchange states: “both Derivative Securities Products and Index-Linked Securities are excluded from the applicable listing criteria for Managed Fund Shares holding equity securities in Commentary .01 to Rule 8.600–E.”
Additionally, the Exchange represents that it has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in Index-Linked Securities in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 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.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
FINRA is proposing to adopt Capital Acquisition Broker Rules 203 (Engaging in Distribution and Solicitation Activities with Government Entities) and 458 (Books and Records Requirements for Government Distribution and Solicitation Activities) that would apply established “pay-to-play” and related rules to the activities of member firms that have elected to be governed by the Capital Acquisition Broker (“CAB”) Rules and that engage in distribution or solicitation activities for compensation with government entities on behalf of investment advisers.
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, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In July 2010, the SEC adopted Rule 206(4)–5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 addressing pay-to-play practices
Based on this regulatory framework, on August 25, 2016, the SEC approved FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 to establish a comprehensive regime to regulate the activities of member firms that engage in distribution or solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers.
In October 2016, FINRA published a
On August 18, 2016, the SEC approved
The CAB Rules became effective on April 14, 2017. In order to provide new CAB applicants with lead time to apply for FINRA membership and obtain the necessary qualifications and registrations, CAB Rules 101–125 became effective on January 3, 2017.
The CAB Rules subject CABs to a number of FINRA Rules, but do not expressly provide that FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 apply to CABs. FINRA believes that the CAB Rules should be clarified to reflect that FINRA Rule 2030 and the related record-keeping requirements of FINRA Rule 4580 apply to CABs. As stated above, the SEC Pay-to-Play Rule prohibits, in part, an investment adviser and its covered associates from providing or agreeing to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a government entity for investment advisory services on behalf of the investment adviser unless the person is a “regulated person.” The SEC Pay-to-Play Rule defines a “regulated person” to include a member firm subject to a FINRA pay-to-play rule.
The proposed rule change would make clear that CABs are subject to FINRA's pay-to-play rule and, therefore, that CABs, similarly to non-CAB member firms, are “regulated persons” that can engage in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers in accordance with the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule, while at the same time deterring CABs from engaging in pay-to-play practices.
To make this clarification, FINRA proposes the addition of CAB Rule 203, which would provide that all capital acquisition brokers are subject to FINRA Rule 2030. CAB Rule 458 would provide that all capital acquisition brokers are subject to FINRA Rule 4580.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change would make clear that CABs are subject to the same regime that regulates the activities of non-CAB member firms that engage in distribution or solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers, while deterring CABs from engaging in pay-to-play practices. In the absence of this proposed rule change, under the SEC's Pay-to-Play Rule, CABs could be prohibited from receiving compensation for engaging in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers following the effective date of FINRA Rule 2030 because the rule set for CABs does not expressly provide that FINRA Rule 2030 applies to CABs. FINRA believes that clarifying that FINRA Rule 2030 and the related record-keeping requirements of FINRA Rule 4580 apply to CABs is a more effective regulatory response to the concerns identified by the SEC regarding third-party solicitations than an outright ban on such activity. Thus, the proposed rule change is intended to make clear that CABs, similarly to non-CAB member firms, are “regulated persons” that can engage in distribution and solicitation activities with government entities on behalf of investment advisers in accordance with the SEC Pay-to-Play rule, while at the same time deterring such firms from engaging in pay-to-play practices.
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. While CABs have a more limited scope of permitted activities relative to other member firms, they still may engage, for example, in providing advice to municipalities either as issuer or as participant in the issuance. The proposed rule change would allow CABs to be subject to the same pay-to-play rules as other non-CAB member firms. As such, the economic impacts associated with this proposal are all contemplated in the Economic Impact Assessment accompanying the filing of FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580. In this regard, FINRA's Economic Impact Assessment in the Proposing Release for FINRA Rules 2030 and 4580 considered the impact on all FINRA member firms, including firms that at that time engaged solely in activities that were later deemed permissible for CABs.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change on August 16, 2017, which amended and replaced the proposed rule change.
The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and there has been no trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend: (i) Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual to modify the provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing without a prior Exchange Act registration; (ii) Rule 15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) Rule 104 to specify DMM requirements when a security is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.10B and there has been no trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) Rule 123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange.
Generally, the Exchange expects to list companies in connection with a firm commitment underwritten initial public offering (“IPO”), upon transfer from another market, or pursuant to a spin-off. Companies listing in connection with an IPO must demonstrate that they have $40 million in market value of
Section 102.01B currently contains a provision under which the Exchange recognizes that some companies that have not previously had their common equity securities registered under the Exchange Act, but which have sold common equity securities in a private placement, may wish to list their common equity securities on the Exchange at the time of effectiveness of a registration statement filed solely for the purpose of allowing existing shareholders to sell their shares. Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides that the Exchange will, on a case by case basis, exercise discretion to list such companies. In exercising this discretion, Footnote (E) provides that the Exchange will determine that such company has met the $100 million aggregate market value of publicly-held shares requirement based on a combination of both (i) an independent third-party valuation (a “Valuation”) of the company and (ii) the most recent trading price for the company's common stock in a trading system for unregistered securities operated by a national securities exchange or a registered broker-dealer (a “Private Placement Market”). The Exchange will attribute a market value of publicly-held shares to the company equal to the lesser of (i) the value calculable based on the Valuation and (ii) the value calculable based on the most recent trading price in a Private Placement Market.
Any Valuation used for purposes of Footnote (E) must be provided by an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable competence in the provision of such valuations. The Valuation must be of a recent date as of the time of the approval of the company for listing and the evaluator must have considered, among other factors, the annual financial statements required to be included in the registration statement, along with financial statements for any completed fiscal quarters subsequent to the end of the last year of audited financials included in the registration statement. The Exchange will consider any market factors or factors particular to the listing applicant that would cause concern that the value of the company had diminished since the date of the Valuation and will continue to monitor the company and the appropriateness of relying on the Valuation up to the time of listing. In particular, the Exchange will examine the trading price trends for the stock in the Private Placement Market over a period of several months prior to listing and will only rely on a Private Placement Market price if it is consistent with a sustained history over that several month period evidencing a market value in excess of the Exchange's market value requirement. The Exchange may withdraw its approval of the listing at any time prior to the listing date if it believes that the Valuation no longer accurately reflects the company's likely market value.
While Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B provides for a company listing upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement, it does not make any provision for a company listing in connection with the effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement in the absence of an IPO or other Securities Act registration. A company is able to become an Exchange Act registrant without a concurrent public offering by filing a Form 10 (or, in the case of a foreign private issuer, a Form 20–F) with the SEC. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to list companies that wish to list immediately upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration provided the applicable company meets all other listing requirements. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B to explicitly provide that it applies to companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent Securities Act registration as well as to companies listing upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement.
The Exchange notes that the requirement of Footnote (E) that the Exchange should rely on recent Private Placement Market trading in addition to a Valuation may cause difficulties for certain companies that are otherwise clearly qualified for listing. Some companies that are clearly large enough to be suitable for listing on the Exchange do not have their securities traded at all on a Private Placement Market prior to going public. In other cases, the Private Placement Market trading is too limited to provide a reasonable basis for reaching conclusions about a company's qualification. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to amend Footnote (E) to provide an exception to the Private Placement Market trading requirement for companies with respect to which there is a recent Valuation available indicating at least $250 million in market value of publicly-held shares. Adopting a requirement that the Valuation must be at least two-and-a-half times the $100 million requirement will give a significant degree of comfort that the market value of the company's shares will meet the standard upon commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange notes that it is unlikely that any Valuation would reach a conclusion that was incorrect to the degree necessary for a company using this provision to fail to meet the $100 million requirement upon listing, in particular because any Valuation used for this purpose must be provided by an entity that has significant experience and demonstrable competence in the provision of such valuations.
The Exchange proposes to further amend Footnote (E) by providing that a valuation agent will not be deemed to be independent if:
• At the time it provides such valuation, the valuation agent or any affiliated person or persons beneficially own in the aggregate as of the date of the valuation, more than 5% of the class of securities to be listed, including any right to receive any such securities exercisable within 60 days.
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has provided any investment banking services to the listing applicant within the 12 months preceding the date of the valuation. For purposes of this provision, “investment banking services” includes, without limitation, acting as an underwriter in an offering for the issuer; acting as a financial adviser in a merger or acquisition; providing venture capital, equity lines of credit, PIPEs (private investment, public equity transactions), or similar investments; serving as placement agent for the issuer; or acting as a member of a selling group in a securities underwriting.
• The valuation agent or any affiliated entity has been engaged to provide investment banking services to the listing applicant in connection with the proposed listing or any related financings or other related transactions.
The Exchange believes that this proposed new requirement will provide a significant additional guarantee of the independence of any entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E).
The proposed amendments would enable the Exchange to compete for listings of companies that the Exchange believes would be able to list on the Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) but would not be able to list on the NYSE under its current rules. Nasdaq's initial
The Exchange believes that it is important to have a transparent and consistent approach to determining compliance with applicable market capitalization requirements by previously private companies seeking to list without a public offering and that Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B as amended would provide such a mechanism. In the absence of the proposed amendments, companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement would have no means of listing on the NYSE, while the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would interpret its own rules as enabling it to list a company under those circumstances. As such, the proposed amendment would address a significant competitive disadvantage faced by the NYSE, while also providing certain companies with an alternative listing venue where none currently exists.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the opening of trading to specify procedures for the opening trade on the day of initial listing of a company that lists under the amended provisions of Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that did not have recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market before listing on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes that the issuer must retain a financial advisor to provide specified functions, as described below.
Rule 15(b) provides that a designated market maker (“DMM”) will publish a pre-opening indication either (i) before a security opens if the opening transaction on the Exchange is anticipated to be at a price that represents a change of more than the “Applicable Price Range,” as specified in Rule 15(d), from a specified “Reference Price,” as specified in Rule 15(c), or (ii) if a security has not opened by 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. Rule 15(c)(1) specifies the Reference Price for a security other than an American Depository Receipt, which would be either (A) the security's last reported sale price on the Exchange; (B) the security's offering price in the case of an IPO; or (C) the security's last reported sale price on the securities market from which the security is being transferred to the Exchange, on the security's first day of trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 15(c)(1) to add new sub-paragraph (D) to specify the Reference Price for a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. As proposed, if such security has had recent sustained trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, the Reference Price in such scenario would be the most recent transaction price in that market or, if none, a price determined by the Exchange in consultation with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security.
Rule 104(a)(2) provides that the DMM has a responsibility for facilitating openings and reopenings for each of the securities in which the DMM is registered as required under Exchange rules, which includes supplying liquidity as needed.
As described above, an issuer that seeks to list under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and that does not have any recent Private Market Placement trading would be required to have a financial advisor in connection with such listing. The Exchange proposes that the DMM would be required to consult with such financial advisor when facilitating the open of trading of the first day of trading of such listing. This requirement is based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which requires that a new listing on Nasdaq that is not an IPO have a financial advisor willing to perform the functions performed by an underwriter in connection with pricing an IPO on Nasdaq.
The Exchange believes that such a financial advisor would have an understanding of the status of ownership of outstanding shares in the company and would have been working with the issuer to identify a market for the securities upon listing. Such financial advisor would be able to provide input to the DMM regarding expectations of where such a new listing should be priced, based on pre-listing selling and buying interest and other factors that would not be available to the DMM through other sources.
To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 104(a)(3) to provide that when facilitating the opening on the first day of trading of a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing, the DMM would be required to consult with a financial advisor to the issuer of such security in order to effect a fair and orderly opening of such security.
Notwithstanding the proposed obligation to consult with the financial advisor, the DMM would remain responsible for facilitating the opening of trading of such security, and the opening of such security must take into consideration the buy and sell orders available on the Exchange's book in connection. Accordingly, just as a DMM is not bound by an offering price in an IPO, and will open such a security at a
The Exchange further proposes to amend its rules to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt for a new listing that is not the subject of an IPO. As proposed, Rule 123D(d) would provide that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange of a security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the over-the-counter market pursuant to FINRA Form 211 (“OTC market”) immediately prior to the initial pricing.
Proposed Rule 123D(d) is based in part on Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9), which provides that the process for halting and initial pricing of a security that is the subject of an IPO on Nasdaq is also available for the initial pricing of any other security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately prior to the initial public offering, provided that a broker-dealer serving in the role of financial advisor to the issuer of the securities being listed is willing to perform the functions under Rule 4120(c)(7)(B) that are performed by an underwriter with respect to an initial public offering.
Proposed Rule 123D(d) would provide authority for the Exchange to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is having its initial listing on the Exchange, is not an IPO, and has not been listed on a national securities exchange or traded in the OTC market immediately prior to the initial pricing (“non-IPO listing”). The Exchange does not propose to include the last clause of Nasdaq Rule 4120(c)(9) in proposed Rule 123D(d). Rather, as described above, the Exchange proposes to address the role of a financial advisor to an issuer in specified circumstances in Rule 104(a)(3).
The Exchange believes that it would be consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest for the Exchange, as a primary listing exchange, to have the authority to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing because it would ensure that a new listing that is not the subject of an IPO could not be traded before the security opens on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The proposal to permit companies listing upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public offering or Securities Act registration is designed to protect investors and the public interest, because such companies will be required to meet all of the same quantitative requirements met by other listing applicants. The proposal to amend Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual to allow companies to avail themselves of that provision without any reliance on Private Placement Market trading is designed to protect investors and the public interest because any company relying solely on a valuation to demonstrate compliance with the market value of publicly-held shares requirement will be required to demonstrate a market value of publicly-held shares of $250 million, rather than the $100 million that is generally applicable. The proposal to include a definition of valuation agent independence in Footnote (E) is consistent with the protection of investors, as it ensures that any entity providing a Valuation for purposes of Footnote (E) will have a significant level of independence from the listing applicant.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rules 15 and 104 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule changes would specify requirements relating to the opening of a trading of a security that would be listed under the proposed amended text of Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual. The proposed amendments to Exchange rules are designed to provide DMMs with information to assist them in meeting their obligations to open a new listing under the amended provisions of the Manual. Rule 15 would be amended to specify the Reference Price that the DMM would use for purposes of determining whether a pre-opening indication is required and Rule 104 would be amended to provide that the DMM will consult with a financial advisor when facilitating the opening of a security that is listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual and that has not had recent sustained history of trading in a Private Placement Market prior to listing.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 123D to provide authority to declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide the Exchange with authority to halt trading across all markets for a security that has not previously listed on the Exchange, but for which a regulatory halt would promote fair and orderly markets. The proposed rule change would also align halt rule authority among primary listing exchanges. The Exchange further believes that having the authority to declare a regulatory halt for a security that is the subject of a non-IPO listing is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and would promote fair and orderly markets by helping to protect against volatility in pricing and initial trading of unseasoned securities.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendment to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the
As noted above, Nasdaq's listing rules do not include explicit limitations applicable to the listing of companies in these circumstances. Additionally, Nasdaq has listed previously private companies upon effectiveness of a selling shareholder registration statement without a concurrent underwritten offering on several occasions in the past. In light of this precedent and the absence of any Nasdaq rule provision explicitly limiting the ability of a company to qualify for listing without a public offering or prior public market price, the Exchange believes that Nasdaq would take the position that it could also list a previously private company upon effectiveness of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public offering. As such, the proposed amendment to Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B of the Manual would increase competition by enabling the NYSE to compete with Nasdaq for these listings.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed amendments to its Rule Book will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the changes are not related to competition, but rather are designed to promote fair and orderly markets in a manner that is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The proposed changes do not impact the ability of any market participant or trading venue to compete.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 2, 2016, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
Pursuant to Commission Rule of Practice 431,
Accordingly,
It is further
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 701, entitled “Opening.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to amend GEMX Rule 701, “Opening” to specifically amend opening obligations for Primary Market Makers or “PMMs.” The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to a Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) rule.
Today, GEMX Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned in a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned in a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute after the announced market opening.
First, the Exchange proposes to add the words “or index” to further clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options. The Exchange proposes this addition to further clarify the requirement in Rule 701(c)(3) clearly applies to equity and index options.
Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the PMM's current obligation to enter Valid Width Quotes not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index for all assigned options, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option after the announced market opening. The Exchange believes that the current requirement is very burdensome and instead proposes to add “in 90% of their assigned series” to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in 90% of their assigned series, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute after the announced market opening.
Further, the Exchange proposes to require PMMs to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price, in the underlying index or, with respect to a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option, following the announced market opening. The Exchange's proposal is intended to account for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange's surveillance staff would monitor to ensure that PMMs are complying with these requirements during the Opening Process.
Today, the Opening Process for an options series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m. if the system has received, within two minutes (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) of the opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity options or, in the case of index options, within two minutes of the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site), or within two minutes of market opening for the underlying currency in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) the PMM's Valid Width Quote, the Valid Width Quotes of two Competitive Maker [sic] Makers (“CMMs”) or if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quote of two CMMs have been submitted within such timeframe, if one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote.
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on September 29, 2017.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange's first proposal at Rule 701(c)(3) to clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options will make clear the applicability of the PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes. This proposed amendment is non-substantive and is intended to add clarity to the rules.
The second proposal to amend a PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the 90% requirement to provide a Valid Width Quote in a series to which the PMM is assigned will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly provided a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of the series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where opening 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, is not feasible.
The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% Valid Width Quoting obligation, not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% of their assigned series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner. The Exchange's proposal accounts for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange believes that the time frame for PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening will ensure liquidity on GEMX during the Opening Process. The Exchange desires to encourage PMMs to continue to make markets on GEMX at the Opening. The Exchange believes that requiring PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned options not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% will enhance the market making functions for PMMs and serve to maintain a fair and orderly market thereby promoting the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the Opening Process involves many types of participants and interest.
The Exchange's proposal to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute time following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening and promptly enter a Valid Width quote for the remaining 10% their assigned series does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposal will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series which were not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly entered a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of their assigned series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where entering a Valid Width Quote for 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options within one minute after the announced market opening is not feasible. The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% obligation to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening for the underlying security along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 701, entitled “Opening.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to amend ISE Rule 701, “Opening” to specifically amend opening obligations for Primary Market Makers or “PMMs.” The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is similar to a Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) rule.
Today, ISE Rule 701(c)(3) states that the PMM assigned in a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The PMM assigned in a particular U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute after the announced market opening.
First, the Exchange proposes to add the words “or index” to further clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options. The Exchange proposes this addition to further clarify
Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the PMM's current obligation to enter Valid Width Quotes not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index for all assigned options, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option after the announced market opening. The Exchange believes that the current requirement is very burdensome and instead proposes to add “in 90% of their assigned series” to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in 90% of their assigned series, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option in 90% of their assigned series not late [sic] than one minute after the announced market opening.
Further, the Exchange proposes to require PMMs to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index, or with respect to a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option, following the announced market opening. The Exchange's proposal is intended to account for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange's surveillance staff would monitor to ensure that PMMs are complying with these requirements during the Opening Process.
Today, the Opening Process for an options series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m. if the system has received, within two minutes (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) of the opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity options or, in the case of index options, within two minutes of the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site), or within two minutes of market opening for the underlying currency in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency option (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) the PMM's Valid Width Quote, the Valid Width Quotes of two Competitive Market Makers (“CMMs”) or if neither the PMM's Valid Width Quote nor the Valid Width Quote of two CMM's have been submitted within such timeframe, if one CMM has submitted a Valid Width Quote.
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on September 29, 2017.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's first proposal at Rule 701(c)(3) to clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options will make clear the applicability of the PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes. This proposed amendment is non-substantive and is intended to add clarity to the rules.
The second proposal to amend a PMM's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the 90% requirement to provide a Valid Width Quote in a series to which the PMM is assigned will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly provided a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of the series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where opening 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening is not feasible.
The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% Valid Width Quoting obligation, not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening, along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% of their assigned series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner. The Exchange's proposal accounts for market conditions which may prevent a PMM from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the PMM's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the PMM to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange believes that the time frame for PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening will ensure liquidity on ISE during the Opening Process. The Exchange desires to encourage PMMs to continue to make markets on ISE at the Opening. The Exchange believes that requiring PMMs to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned options
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the Opening Process involves many types of participants and interest.
The Exchange's proposal to require a PMM to enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute time following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening and promptly enter a Valid Width quote for the remaining 10% their assigned series does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposal will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. PMMs would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series which were not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor PMMs to ensure that they promptly entered a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of their assigned series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a PMM to experience circumstances where entering a Valid Width Quote for 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options within one minute after the announced market opening is not feasible. The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% obligation to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, following the announced market opening for the underlying security along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to create a subsidy program, the Market Access and Routing Subsidy (“MARS”), for GEMX Members that provide certain order routing functionalities
Consider the following example: Both Members A and B are GEMX Members but A does not utilize its own connections to route orders to the Exchange, and instead utilizes B's connections. Under this program, B will be eligible for the MARS Payment while A is liable for any transaction charges resulting from the execution of orders that originate from A, arrive at the Exchange via B's connectivity, and subsequently execute and clear at The Options Clearing Corporation or “OCC,” where A is the valid executing clearing Member or give-up on the transaction. Similarly, where B utilizes its own connections to execute transactions, B will be eligible for the MARS Payment, but would also be liable for any transaction resulting from the execution of orders that originate from B, arrive at the Exchange via B's connectivity, and subsequently execute and clear at OCC, where B is the valid executing clearing Member or give-up on the transaction.
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.
GEMX proposes a new subsidy program, MARS, which would pay a subsidy to GEMX Members that provide certain order routing functionalities to other GEMX Members and/or use such functionalities themselves. Generally, under MARS, GEMX proposes to make payments to participating GEMX Members to subsidize their costs of providing routing services to route orders to GEMX. The Exchange believes that MARS will attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange from non-GEMX market participants as well as GEMX Members.
To qualify for MARS, a GEMX Member's order routing functionality would be required to meet certain criteria. Specifically the Member's routing system (hereinafter “System”) would be required to: (1) Enable the electronic routing of orders to all of the U.S. options exchanges, including GEMX; (2) provide current consolidated market data from the U.S. options exchanges; and (3) be capable of interfacing with GEMX's API to access current GEMX match engine functionality. The Member's System would also need to cause GEMX to be one of the top four default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders if GEMX is at the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”), regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the default destination on an order-by-order basis.
The Exchange would require GEMX Members desiring to participate in MARS
A MARS Payment would be made to GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have routed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts daily in a month, which were executed on GEMX. For the purpose of qualifying for the MARS Payment, Eligible Contracts would include Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM)
GEMX Members using an order routing functionality provided by another Member or its own functionality will continue to be required to comply with best execution obligations. Specifically, just as with any Priority Customer
GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts in a month would be paid the following per contract rebates:
The specified MARS Payment will be paid on all executed Eligible Contracts that add liquidity, which are routed to GEMX through a participating GEMX Member's System and meet the requisite Eligible Contracts ADV. No payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to GEMX, but not executed. This three-tiered proposal is intended to encourage GEMX Members to execute the maximum number of contracts to achieve the highest rebate.
No payment will be made with respect to orders that are routed to GEMX, but not executed.
The Exchange proposes to add the MARS to Section II as Part B of the Fee Schedule, entitled “Market Access and Routing Subsidy (“MARS”).” Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend the Table of Content to include the new section.
The Exchange believes that the proposed MARS program is reasonable because it is designed to attract higher volumes of equity and ETF options volume to the Exchange, which will benefit all GEMX Members by offering greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed subsidy offered by MARS is both equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying GEMX Member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts.
The Exchange believes that requiring GEMX Members to maintain their Systems according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange in order to qualify for the proposed MARS program is reasonable because the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to send higher volumes of orders to GEMX, which will contribute to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity. The Exchange also believes that the proposed MARS program is reasonable because it is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that requiring Members to maintain their Systems according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange in order to qualify for MARS is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these requirements will uniformly apply to all market participants desiring to qualify for MARS.
The Exchange's proposal to require a Member's System to cause GEMX to be the one of the top four default destination exchanges for (a) individually executed marketable orders if GEMX is at the NBBO, regardless of size or time or (b) orders that establish a new NBBO on GEMX's Order Book, but allow any user to manually override GEMX as the default destination on an order-by-order basis is reasonable. Offering Members the ability to select either of the aforementioned requirements to qualify for System Eligibility would incentivize GEMX Members to quote at the NBBO on GEMX to qualify for MARS. Also, the Exchange seeks to encourage market participants to send higher volumes of orders to GEMX, which will contribute to the Exchange's depth of book as well as to the top of book liquidity. The MARS program is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange and the Exchange believes that these proposed requirements will cause GEMX to be an attractive market to send orders. The Exchange also notes that The NASDAQ Options Market LLC currently offers a MARS program today with similar requirements.
The Exchange's proposal to require Members to cause GEMX to be the one of the top four default destination exchanges is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these requirements will uniformly apply to all Participants desiring to qualify for MARS. Any GEMX Member desiring to participate in MARS would be required to meet the aforementioned System Eligibility requirements.
The Exchange believes that excluding the volumes attributable to QCC and PIM Orders is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons below. Today, GEMX reduces taker fees for any GEMX Member that achieves a certain volume threshold as displayed in Table 1 of the Schedule of Fees.
The Exchange further notes that while MARS is only being offered to qualifying GEMX Members for Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer equity option Orders and is not including Priority Customer or Market Maker
Further, the proposed MARS Subsidy is designed to attract higher margin business to the Exchange. To offer the proposed subsidy on Priority Customer or Market Maker Orders would require funding from some other source, such as raising fees for other participants. As a result, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to only count Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer Orders toward the Eligible Contracts, which unlike Priority Customer and Market Maker Orders are not eligible for Market Maker rebates today beyond $0.25 per contract on GEMX. The Exchange notes that it is commonplace within the options industry for exchanges to charge different rates and/or offer different rebates depending upon the capacity in which a participant is trading. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal to only count certain order flow as Eligible Contracts is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons mentioned herein.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a MARS Payment based on certain average daily volumes for Eligible Contracts, which add liquidity, is reasonable because the Exchange believes that the MARS program will attract order flow which would be beneficial for all GEMX Members in that it would generate greater price discovery, increased transparency, and an increased opportunity to trade on the Exchange. The MARS Payments should enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange. Further, the proposed tier structure would allow GEMX Members to price their services at a level that will enable them to attract order flow from market participants who would otherwise utilize an existing front-end order entry mechanism instead of incurring the cost in time and money to develop their own internal systems to be able to deliver orders directly to the Exchange's System. The Exchange also seeks to reward market participants that bring a greater amount of order flow to the Exchange by paying a higher rebate based on the average daily volume that qualified as Eligible Contracts.
The Exchange's proposal to pay a MARS Payment based on certain average daily volumes for Eligible Contracts, which add liquidity, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will uniformly pay all GEMX Members the proposed rebates specified in the proposed MARS Payment tiers provided the GEMX Member has executed the requisite number of Eligible Contracts. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed MARS Payments offered by the Exchange are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any qualifying GEMX Member that offers market access and connectivity to the Exchange and/or utilizes such functionality themselves may earn the MARS Payment for all Eligible Contracts. The Exchange believes that the tiers are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would pay the same rebates to all qualifying GEMX Members who transact the requisite volume to earn the rebate.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pay the proposed MARS Payment to GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the Eligible Contracts, even when a different GEMX Member may be liable for transaction charges resulting from the execution of the orders upon which the subsidy might be paid. The Exchange notes that this sort of arrangement already exists on The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) with its MARS Program.
The Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any other revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX is reasonable because Members could still charge fees for the general use of its order routing system as well as charging fees or commissions in accordance with its general practices with respect to transactions effected through its system. The Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any other revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly apply the MARS requirements to all qualifying GEMX Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other
The Exchange believes that requiring Members to maintain their order routing systems according to the various requirements set forth by the Exchange in order to qualify for MARS does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because the proposed requirements will uniformly apply to all market participants desiring to qualify for MARS.
The Exchange believes that excluding QCC and PIM Orders does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because these types of orders will uniformly be excluded from the volume calculation for all qualifying GEMX Members for MARS.
The Exchange believes that excluding Priority Customer and Market Makers Orders from the types of orders that would be eligible for MARS does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because Priority Customer and Market Makers Orders are eligible for rebates today and reduced fees.
The Exchange believes that paying the proposed tiered MARS Payments to qualifying GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the Eligible Contracts does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition, even when a different GEMX Member, other than the GEMX Member receiving the subsidy, may be liable for transaction charges, because this sort of arrangement should encourage GEMX Members to offer order routing functionalities to other market participants.
The Exchange believes that paying the proposed tiered MARS Payments to qualifying GEMX Members that have System Eligibility and have executed the Eligible Contracts in a month, does not create an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange would count all Non-Nasdaq GEMX Market Maker (FARMM), Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer and Professional Customer Order volume toward the Eligible Contracts. Priority Customer and Market Maker Orders are offered other pricing incentives today in the form of enhanced rebates and lower fees.
The Exchange believes that preventing Members from receiving any other revenue for the use of its routing system, specifically with respect to orders routed to GEMX does not create undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange would continue to uniformly apply its MARS requirements to all GEMX Members.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1017, entitled “Openings in Options.”
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to amend Phlx Rule 1017, entitled “Openings in Options” to specifically amend opening obligations for Specialists.
Today, Phlx Rule 1017(d)(iii) states that the Specialist assigned in a particular equity option must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index. The Specialist assigned in a particular U.S. dollar-settled FCO must enter a Valid Width Quote not later than 30 seconds after the announced market opening.
First, the Exchange proposes to add the words “or index” to further clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options. The Exchange proposes this addition to further clarify the requirement in Rule 1017(d)(iii) clearly applies to equity and index options.
Second, the Exchange proposes to modify the Specialist's current obligation to enter Valid Width Quotes not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index for all assigned options, or in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled FCO after the announced market opening. The Exchange believes that the current requirement is very burdensome and instead proposes to add “in 90% of their assigned series” to require a Specialist to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in 90% of their assigned series, or in the case of U.S. dollar-settled FCOs in 90% of their assigned series not later than 30 seconds after the announced market opening.
Further, the Exchange proposes to require Specialists to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to a U.S. dollar-settled FCO, following the announced market opening. The Exchange's proposal is intended to account for market conditions which may prevent a Specialist from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the Specialist's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the Specialist to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange's surveillance staff would monitor to ensure that Specialists are complying with these requirements during the Opening Process.
Today, the Opening Process for an options series will be conducted on or after 9:30 a.m. if the system has received, within two minutes (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) of the opening trade or quote on the market for the underlying security in the case of equity options or, in the case of index options, within two minutes of the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site), or within two minutes of market opening for the underlying currency in the case of a U.S. dollar-settled FCO (or such shorter time as determined by the Exchange and disseminated to membership on the Exchange's Web site) the Specialist's Valid Width Quote, the Valid Width Quotes of two Phlx Electronic Market Makers other than the Specialist or if neither the Specialist or two Phlx Electronic Market Makers have submitted Valid Width Quotes, within the specified timeframe then one Phlx Electronic Market Maker's Valid Width Quote.
The Exchange is also proposing to amend existing rule text in Phlx Rule 1017(d)(iii) to lowercase a reference to the “Opening Price” as that reference refers to the underlying security's opening price, not the defined Opening Price in Rule 1017(a)(iii).
The Exchange proposes to implement this rule change on September 29, 2017.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's first proposal at Rule 701(c)(3) to clarify that the requirement applies to equities and index options will make clear the applicability of the Specialist's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes. This proposed amendment is non-substantive and is intended to add clarity to the rules.
The second proposal to amend a Specialist's requirement to enter Valid Width Quotes during the Opening Process is consistent with the Act because the 90% requirement to provide a Valid Width Quote in a series to which the Specialist is assigned will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. Specialists would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series, which did not open within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor Specialists to ensure that they promptly provided a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of the series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a Specialist to experience circumstances where opening 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute of the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening, is not feasible.
The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% Valid Width Quoting obligation, not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening, along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% of their assigned series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner. The Exchange's proposal accounts for market conditions which may prevent a Specialist from opening all assigned series, for example an extremely volatile market which may impact the Specialist's ability to enter aggressive quotes. Another example would be that news pertaining to a specific security is causing the underlying price to fluctuate rapidly and significantly, thereby causing the Specialist to await the underlying equity price to settle before entering a Valid Width Quote. The Exchange believes that the time frame for Specialists to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening, will ensure liquidity on Phlx during the Opening Process.
The Exchange desires to encourage Specialists to continue to make markets on Phlx at the Opening. The Exchange believes that requiring Specialists to provide a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned options not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining 10% will enhance the market making functions for Specialists and serve to maintain a fair and orderly market thereby promoting the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including on the opening. Nor does the Exchange believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition; the Opening Process involves many types of participants and interest.
The Exchange's proposal to require a Specialist to enter a Valid Width Quote in 90% of their assigned series not later than one minute time following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening and promptly enter a Valid Width quote for the remaining 10% their assigned series does not create an undue burden on competition. The proposal will continue to ensure that options series are opened in a timely manner, while not imposing a burdensome requirement on market participants. Specialists would be required to promptly enter a Valid Width Quote in the remainder of their assigned series which were not open within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening. The Exchange would monitor Specialists to ensure that they promptly entered a Valid Width Quote for the remainder of their assigned series within a reasonable amount of time. The Exchange notes that market conditions could cause a Specialist to experience circumstances where entering a Valid Width Quote for 100% of all of their assigned series within one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs within one minute after the announced market opening, is not feasible. The Exchange believes that the proposed 90% obligation to enter a Valid Width Quote not later than one minute following the dissemination of a quote or trade by the market for the underlying security or, in the case of index options, following the receipt of the opening price in the underlying index or, with respect to U.S. dollar-settled FCOs, following the announced market opening for the underlying security along with the “prompt” standard for the remaining series will ensure all series are opened in a timely manner.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 22, 2017, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change.
In the Notice of Filing and Amendment No. 1, the MSRB stated that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to reflect relevant regulatory developments; enhance the “out-of-state disclosure obligation” about the potential other benefits an investor may be provided by investing in a 529 college savings plan offered by the home state of the investor or of the designated beneficiary; clarify that certain advertisements that contain performance data may include a hyperlink to a Web site that contains more recent performance data; and include several revisions that are designed to promote understanding of and compliance with the rule.
As further described by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, Rule G–21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) currently requires that a municipal fund security advertisement
The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No.1, would require that a municipal fund security advertisement of an investment option that invests solely in a money market fund include enhanced disclosure about the risks associated with investing in that investment option.
The MSRB stated that the current disclosure required by Rule G–21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) alerts a 529 college savings plan investor that an investment option that that invests solely in a money market fund (i) is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency (unless such guarantee is provided by or on behalf of such issuer) and (ii) if the money market fund is held out as maintaining a stable net asset value, that although the issuer seeks to preserve the value of the investment at $1.00 per share or such other applicable fixed share price, it is possible to lose money by investing in the investment option.
The proposed rule change also would update Rule G–21(e)(ii)(F) and Rule G–21(e)(vi) to substitute FINRA for references to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”).
The proposed rule change would, according to the MSRB, enhance the out-of-state disclosure required by Rule G–21(e)(i)(A)(2)(b).
The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would provide two clarifications to the legend that must be provided in an advertisement of performance data by a municipal fund security.
The MSRB stated the proposed rule change would make certain revisions to the provisions of Rule G–21(e) to assist the reader's understanding of the disclosure and to assist with a dealer's compliance with the rule.
As noted previously, the Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter and Amendment No. 1. FSI supported the proposed rule change,
Eversheds Sutherland suggested that the MSRB make a minor technical change to clarify that the proposed rule change to Rule G–21(e)(i)(A)(2)(c) would apply to an advertisement of a municipal fund security “that has an investment option that invests solely in a money market fund.”
The MSRB stated that it agreed with Eversheds Sutherland.
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, the comment letters received, the MSRB Response Letter, and Amendment No. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the provisions of Sections 15B(b)(2)
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission also has considered the impact of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its responses and through Amendment No. 1, has addressed commenters' concerns.
For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use of 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.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 5, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
As described in more detail in the Notice, the Exchange proposes to introduce Bats Market Close, a closing match process for non-BZX listed securities. For non-BZX listed securities only, the Exchange's System
Members
At the MOC Cut-Off Time, the System would match for execution all buy and sell MOC orders entered into the System based on time priority.
The Exchange would utilize the official closing price published by the exchange designated by the primary listing market in the case where the primary listing market suffers an impairment and is unable to perform its closing auction process.
The Exchange states that it is proposing to adopt Bats Market Close in response to requests from market participants, particularly buy-side firms,
As of August 16, 2017, the Commission has received forty-six comment letters on the proposal, including a response from the Exchange.
Six commenters supported the proposal and stated that it would increase competition among exchanges for executions of orders at the close.
In contrast, other commenters argued that the proposal would impede fair competition, including by “free-riding” on the investments the primary listing markets have made in their closing auctions.
NASDAQ also argued that the proposal would burden competition. Specifically, NASDAQ believed that the proposal undermines intra-market competition, by removing orders from NASDAQ's auction book and prohibiting those orders from competing on NASDAQ, which NASDAQ argued is necessary for the exchange to arrive at the most accurate closing price.
In addition, both NYSE and NASDAQ referenced the Commission's disapproval of NASDAQ's proposal to create a Benchmark Order as support that BZX has not sufficiently satisfied its obligation to justify that the proposal is consistent with the Act and not an inappropriate burden on competition. NYSE argued that BZX essentially proposes to compete with broker-dealer agency order matching services.
In response to commenters' contentions that the proposal would burden competition, BZX asserted that the proposal would enhance rather than burden competition.
BZX also argued that, rather than looking to compete with broker-dealer services, it is seeking to compete on price with the primary listing markets' closing auctions.
BZX also challenged the assertion that it was “free-riding” on the primary listing exchanges' closing auctions.
The majority of commenters addressed the potential impacts of the proposal on price discovery in the closing auctions on the primary listing markets. Seven commenters stated that the proposal would not negatively impact price discovery in the primary listing markets' closing auctions.
Thirty-two commenters stated that the proposal would further fragment the markets and harm price discovery in the closing auctions on the primary listing markets.
NYSE similarly argued that even though Bats Market Close would only accept MOC orders, it could materially impact official closing prices determined through a NYSE closing auction.
Second, NYSE argued that the proposal would also detrimentally impact price discovery on the NYSE Arca and NYSE American automated closing auctions. NYSE stated that in the last six months there were 130 instances where the official closing price determined through a NYSE Arca closing auction was based entirely on paired-off market order volume.
Several other commenters similarly explained how the proposal may impact the integrity of official closing prices. In particular, GTS, a DMM on NYSE, argued that market-on-close orders are a vital component of closing prices and, should those orders be diverted away from the primary listing markets as a result of the proposal, it could undermine the official closing prices.
Some commenters further argued that because the proposal undermines the reliability of the closing process and/or the official closing price it also poses a risk to listed companies and its shareholders.
Moreover, some commenters argued that the centralization of liquidity at the open and close of trading, and how primary listing markets perform during the opening and closing, are important factors for issuers in determining where to list their securities, and the additional risk posed to listed
In response to concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the price discovery process, BZX argued that, because the proposal would only match MOC orders and would require the Exchange to publish the number of matched shares in advance of the primary listing markets' cut-off times, BZX believes it would avoid any impact on price discovery.
In response to NYSE's arguments regarding the impact on a DMM's ability to price the close, BZX argued that this point highlights what it believes to be an additional benefit of allowing it to compete with NYSE's closing auction.
With regard to concerns about the impact of the proposal on issuers and their shareholders, BZX reaffirmed that the proposal is designed not to impact the trading environment for issuers and their securities or the price discovery function of the primary listing markets' closing auction.
In arguing that the proposal would cause fragmentation and thus impair the closing price, NYSE and NASDAQ also asserted that the proposal contradicts the Commission's approval of recent amendments to the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (the “LULD Plan”) which, they argue, centralize re-opening auction liquidity at the primary listing exchange by prohibiting other market centers from re-opening following a trading pause until the primary listing exchange conducts a re-opening auction.
In response, BZX argued that this comparison is misplaced.
Several commenters addressed the potential impact of the proposal on market complexity and operational risk as a result of increased market fragmentation. Some of these commenters believed that the proposal would not introduce significant additional complexity or operational risk. For example, two commenters argued that the proposal could enhance the resiliency of the closing auction process by providing market participants an additional mechanism through which to execute orders at the official closing price in the event of a disruption at a primary listing market.
In contrast, other commenters argued that the proposal would add unnecessary market complexity and operational risk. In particular, two commenters noted that the proposal would require market participants to monitor an additional data feed, the Bats Auction Feed, one noting that if additional exchanges adopted similar functionality to Bats Market Close, it would require monitoring of even more data feeds.
In response, BZX argued that the proposal would not increase operational risks, but rather would provide a way to address the single point of failure risk that exists for closing auctions conducted on the primary listing markets.
In addition, as noted above, BZX stated that it would be willing to disseminate information regarding matched MOC orders, not only via the Bats Auction Feed, but also via the applicable securities information processor, if permissible.
Several commenters addressed the issue of whether the proposal would facilitate manipulation of both the closing auctions on the primary listing markets, as well as continuous trading during the final minutes of the trading day. Some commenters did not believe it would do so. For example, one commenter noted that incentives to manipulate the closing price already exist and it is unlikely the proposal would result in increased manipulation of the market close.
In contrast, several commenters asserted that the proposal raises a risk of manipulation, in part due to the asymmetry of information that would be disseminated, which would allow market participants to utilize informational advantages to their own benefit. For example, NASDAQ argued that information concerning the amount of orders matched through Bats Market Close, would represent tradable information that market participants could use to “game” the closing crosses on the primary listing markets and undermine fair and orderly markets.
Although not citing concerns regarding manipulation specifically, T. Rowe Price similarly argued that the proposal would lead to information asymmetries that could result in changes in continuous trading behavior leading into the market close as some market participants could be trading on information gathered from Bats Market Close pairing results.
NYSE also stated that identifying manipulative activity would also become more difficult under the proposal due to the time difference between the Bats Market Close and primary market closing auctions and the cross-market nature of the manipulation.
In response, BZX argued that it does not believe that the proposal creates a potential for increased manipulation.
Several commenters also addressed the potential impacts of the proposal on market participants that they assert play important roles in facilitating closing auctions on NYSE. Specifically, three commenters asserted that the proposal would have potentially detrimental impacts on NYSE floor brokers.
Several commenters stated that the proposal could harm issuers, particularly small and mid-cap companies.
In contrast, one commenter argued that the proposal would improve aggregate liquidity at the official closing price.
Finally, some commenters identified areas that they believed were not adequately addressed by the proposal and/or made suggestions for modifications to the Exchange's proposal. For example, one commenter suggested that BZX extend the proposed MOC Cut-Off Time to closer to the primary market close.
The Commission hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
In particular, the Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with: (1) Section 6(b)(5) of the Act which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed “to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, . . . to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest;”
As described above, BZX proposes to introduce Bats Market Close, a closing match process for non-BZX listed securities that would match MOC orders submitted to the Bats Market Close at the official closing price for such security published by the primary listing market. Under the proposal, Members would be able to submit, cancel, and replace MOC orders designated for the Bats Market Close up until the MOC Cut-Off Time at 3:35 p.m., after which time orders would be matched for execution and any remaining imbalance would be cancelled back to the Member(s). BZX would disseminate, via the Bats Auction Feed, the total size of all buy and sell orders matched for each security. The Exchange asserts that its proposal would increase competition and decrease fees for market participants, without impacting the price discovery process.
The Commission has consistently recognized the importance of closing auctions of the primary listing markets. For example, in its adoption of Regulation SCI, the Commission identified systems used to support closings on the primary market as “critical SCI systems,” stating that “reliable . . . closings on the primary listing markets are key to the establishment of fair and orderly markets,” and noting that “closing auctions at the primary listing markets attract widespread participation, and the closing prices they establish are commonly used as benchmarks.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other relevant concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act, or any other provision of the Act or rule or regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b–4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Such comments should be submitted by September 14, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by September 28, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
1. Would the proposed rule change affect price discovery in the closing auction process on each primary listing exchange? If so, how? Would any such impact be the same at each of the primary listing exchanges? What information do market participants need going into the closing auction? Would the proposed rule change affect the information available to market participants during the closing auction process? If so, how? If commenters believe the proposal would harm price discovery in the closing auction process, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support.
2. To what extent, if at all, would the availability of the Bats Market Close impact market participants' use of limit-on-close orders in the closing auction processes on the primary listing exchanges, including with respect to size and price? Please explain. Would market participants use MOC orders in the Bats Market Close as a substitute for using limit orders to participate in the closing auction processes at the primary listing exchanges? Would any such impacts be the same for each of the primary listing exchanges? Are there differences between the closing auction processes at each of the primary listing exchanges whereby the proposed Bats Market Close would have differing effects on each primary listing exchange? If so, please explain. How does information available in the closing auction process affect market participants' order submissions and/or determination of the closing price? Would the proposed rule change affect market participants' trading strategies in closing auctions? If so, how? If commenters believe the proposal would impact the use of limit-on-close orders in closing auctions, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support.
3. What analyses of available data could provide information about relationships between information disseminated during closing auctions, trading strategies in closing auctions, and closing prices? How would such analyses help estimate the impact, if any, of any changes in the availability of information under the proposed rule change on trading strategies and closing prices? In this regard, to the extent possible, please provide specific data, analyses, or studies in support.
4. What amount of trading volume at the close occurs on venues other than the primary listing exchanges (such as competing closing auctions and/or broker-dealer internal matching processes for MOC orders) and how does such closing volume compare with that of the primary listing exchanges? How does that volume impact the closing auction process on each of the primary listing exchanges? If commenters believe the proposal would impact volume in the closing auction process, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support. How does the Bats Market Close proposal differ from such existing processes (
5. Would the proposal have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on competition? Please explain. How would any impact on competition from the proposal benefit or harm the national market system and/or the various market participants? Please describe and explain how, if at all, aspects of the national market system and/or different market participants would be affected. What are the current costs associated with a primary listing market developing and operating a closing auction, and to what extent (and if so, how) are these costs passed on to market participants today? How do the fixed costs associated with developing closing auctions compare to the variable costs of conducting closing auctions? How do the revenues collected from closing auctions compare to these costs? Would the proposal impact the current fees charged by the primary listing markets for participation in their closing auctions? If so, how? If commenters believe the proposal would impact competition, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support.
6. What effect would the proposal have on market complexity and/or operational risk, if any? If commenters believe the proposal would impact market complexity and operational risk, to the extent possible, please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support. Would the daily process of cancelling unmatched MOC orders back to members so that they can be routed to the primary listing markets before the closing auction cut-off times create operational or other risks for the markets or market participants? If so, please describe. Would any such risks be different than the risks that currently exist now for market participants? Are there alternative ways of managing unmatched orders that would have different implications for the operational risks of the proposal? If so, please describe. Would the monitoring of an additional data feed be difficult or increase risk for market participants? Why or why not?
7. Would the proposal affect the potential for manipulation and, if so, what types of manipulative activity might result from, or be decreased by, the proposal? Would the proposal create informational advantages for certain market participants? If so, please detail these advantages and describe whether and how such information could be utilized to a market participant's own advantage. Would such informational advantages differ from information asymmetries that exist in the markets today? If so, please describe. Would the proposal affect surveillance for manipulation negatively or positively, and are existing surveillance tools adequate to monitor any increased risk? Please explain. If commenters believe the proposal would increase or decrease the potential for manipulative activity, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support.
8. What are the potential impacts of the proposal for listed issuers? For example, would the proposal impact the liquidity of an issuer's stock? If so, how? Would the proposal affect an issuer's decision as to whether to list their securities on a national securities exchange? If so, how? Would any impacts of the proposal affect small and mid-sized listed companies differently from larger listed companies? If so, please describe how. What other impacts, if any, could the proposal have on various other market participants, such as market makers and floor brokers, and in particular, their roles in the closing? If commenters believe the proposal would impact listed issuers or other market participants, to the extent possible please provide specific data, analyses, or studies for support.
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.
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 Vermont (FEMA–4330–DR), dated August 16, 2017.
Issued on 08/16/2017.
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 08/16/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a 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 15251B and for economic injury is 152520.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of KENTUCKY.
Issued on: 08/15/2017.
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 Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15247 B and for economic injury is 15248 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Kentucky Ohio.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 08/11/2017.
Issued on 08/11/2017.
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.
The notice of an Administrative declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA, dated 07/31/2017, is hereby amended to establish the incident closing date as 08/01/2017.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of initiation of investigation; hearing; and request for comments.
The United States Trade Representative has initiated an investigation pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Trade Act), to determine whether acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are actionable under the Trade Act. The inter-agency Section 301 Committee is holding a public hearing and seeking comments in connection with this investigation.
The United States Trade Representative initiated the investigation on August 18, 2017. The schedule and due dates are as follows:
To be assured of consideration, written comments and requests to appear at the hearing must be submitted by Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. The request to appear must include a summary of testimony.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017: The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, beginning at 9:30 a.m. If necessary, the hearing may continue on the next business day.
To be assured of consideration, post-hearing rebuttal comments must be submitted by Friday, October 20, 2017 at 11:59 p.m.
You should submit written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For procedural questions concerning written comments or participating in the public hearing, contact Gwendolyn Diggs at (202) 395–3150. Direct all other questions regarding this notice to William Busis, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement and Chair of the Section 301 Committee, or Katherine Linton and Arthur Tsao, Assistant General Counsels at (202) 395–3150.
On August 14, 2017, the President issued a Memorandum (82 FR 39007) to the United States Trade Representative stating
China has implemented laws, policies, and practices and has taken actions related to intellectual property, innovation, and technology that may encourage or require the transfer of American technology and intellectual property to enterprises in China or that may otherwise negatively affect American economic interests. These laws, policies, practices, and actions may inhibit United States exports, deprive United States citizens of fair remuneration for their innovations, divert American jobs to workers in China, contribute to our trade deficit with China, and otherwise undermine American manufacturing, services, and innovation.
The Memorandum included the following instruction:
The United States Trade Representative shall determine, consistent with section 302(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)), whether to investigate any of China's laws, policies, practices, or actions that may be unreasonable or discriminatory and that may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development.
Pursuant to the President's Memorandum, on August 18, 2017, the United States Trade Representative initiated an investigation under section 302(b) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(b)) to determine whether acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.
The acts, policies and practices of the Government of China directed at the transfer of U.S. and other foreign technologies and intellectual property are an important element of China's strategy to become a leader in a number of industries, including advanced-technology industries, as reflected in China's “Made in China 2025” industrial plan, and other similar industrial policy initiatives. The Chinese government's acts, policies, and practices take many forms. The investigation initially will consider the following specific types of conduct:
First, the Chinese government reportedly uses a variety of tools, including opaque and discretionary administrative approval processes, joint venture requirements, foreign equity limitations, procurements, and other mechanisms to regulate or intervene in U.S. companies' operations in China, in order to require or pressure the transfer of technologies and intellectual property to Chinese companies. Moreover, many U.S. companies report facing vague and unwritten rules, as well as local rules that diverge from national ones, which are applied in a selective and non-transparent manner by Chinese government officials to pressure technology transfer.
Second, the Chinese government's acts, policies and practices reportedly deprive U.S. companies of the ability to set market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related negotiations with Chinese companies and undermine U.S. companies' control over their technology in China. For example, the Regulations on Technology Import and Export Administration mandate particular terms for indemnities and ownership of technology improvements for imported technology, and other measures also impose non-market terms in licensing and technology contracts.
Third, the Chinese government reportedly directs and/or unfairly facilitates the systematic investment in, and/or acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and
Fourth, the investigation will consider whether the Chinese government is conducting or supporting unauthorized intrusions into U.S. commercial computer networks or cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, and whether this conduct harms U.S. companies or provides competitive advantages to Chinese companies or commercial sectors.
In addition to these four types of conduct, interested parties may submit for consideration information on other acts, policies and practices of China relating to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation described in the President's Memorandum that might be included in this investigation, and/or might be addressed through other applicable mechanisms.
Section 302(b)(1)(A) of the Trade Act authorizes the United States Trade Representative to initiate an investigation to determine whether conduct is actionable under section 301 of the Trade Act.
Actionable conduct under section 301(b)(1) includes,
Pursuant to section 302(b)(1)(B), the United States Trade Representative has consulted with appropriate advisory committees. The United States Trade Representative also has consulted with members of the inter-agency Section 301 Committee. On the date of initiation, the United States Trade Representative requested consultations with the Government of China concerning the issues under investigation, pursuant to section 303(a)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2413(a)(1)).
Pursuant to section 304(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(2)(B), the United States Trade Representative must determine within 12 months from the date of initiation of the investigation whether any act, policy, or practice described in section 301 of the Trade Acts exists and, if that determination is affirmative, what action, if any, to take.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) invites written comments on:
1. The acts, policies, and practices of the Chinese government described in Section I.B above.
2. Information on other acts, policies and practices of China relating to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation as described in the President's Memorandum, which might be included in this investigation, and/or might be addressed through other applicable mechanisms.
3. The nature and level of burden or restriction on U.S. commerce caused by the applicable acts, policies and practices of the Government of China, and/or any economic assessment of that burden or restriction.
4. The determinations required under section 304 of the Trade Act, that is, whether actionable conduct exists under section 301(b) and what action, if any, should be taken.
To be assured of consideration, USTR must receive initial written comments by 11:59 p.m. on September 28, 2017, in accordance with the instructions in section II.B below.
The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington DC 20436, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 10, 2017. Persons wishing to appear at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention and a summary of the proposed testimony by 11:59 p.m. on September 28, 2017, in accordance with the instructions in section II.B below. Remarks at the hearing may be no longer than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the Section 301 Committee. The deadline for submission of post-hearing rebuttal comments is 11:59 p.m. on October 20, 2017.
Indicate in the “Type Comment” field if you are submitting a request to appear at the hearing, and include the name, address and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony. A summary of the testimony should be attached by using the “Upload File” field. The file name should include the name of the person who will be presenting the testimony.
Persons submitting a notification of intent to testify, a summary of testimony, or written comments must do so in English, and must identify this matter (on the reference line of the first page of the submission) as “Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation.”
To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments, requests to testify, and summaries of testimony by 11:59 p.m. on September 28, 2017. The deadline for submitting rebuttal comments is 11:59 p.m. on October 20, 2017.
All submissions must be in English and sent electronically via
To make a submission via
The
Indicate in the “Type Comment” field if you are submitting a request to appear at the hearing, and include the name, address and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony. The file name should include who will be presenting the testimony.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the comment itself, rather than submitting them as separate files.
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is business confidential. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify that the information is business confidential and would not customarily be released to the public. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or rebuttal comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect business confidential information or otherwise protect business interests, please contact Katherine Linton at 202–395–3150 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 43 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0042 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The 43 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
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.
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),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Anderton, 58, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Anderton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Alaska.
Mr. Bailey, 63, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bailey understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bailey meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida.
Mr. Betts, 55, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Betts understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Betts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Bigam, 75, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bigam understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bigam meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Brote, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brote understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brote meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Ms. Budrys, 62, has had ITDM since 2014. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Budrys understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Budrys meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Burk, 55, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Burk understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burk meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
Mr. Conner, 69, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Conner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Conner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Coombs, 59, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Coombs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Coombs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Deal, 28, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Deal understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Deal meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Doiron, 51, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Doiron understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Doiron meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. Gazalie, 60, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gazalie understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gazalie meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Grimm, 33, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grimm understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grimm meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Gritten, 56, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gritten understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gritten meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Hanson, 35, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hanson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hanson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Herburger, 55, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12
Mr. Hopper, 71, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hopper understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hopper meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Ms. Howe, 46, has had ITDM since 2013. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Howe understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Howe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hutcheson, 64, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hutcheson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hutcheson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama.
Mr. Keel, 30, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Keel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
Mr. Kitchens, 27, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kitchens understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kitchens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Mr. Korkow, 71, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Korkow understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Korkow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from South Dakota.
Mr. Maurer, 69, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maurer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maurer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDonald, 37, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McDonald understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McDonald meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
Mr. Mohamed, 24, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mohamed understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mohamed meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Montell, 42, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Montell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Montell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Pemberton, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pemberton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pemberton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Perdue, 53, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Perdue understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Perdue meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.
Mr. Recla, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Recla understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Recla meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.
Mr. Reeves, 47, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reeves understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reeves meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Rios, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rios understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rios meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.
Mr. Rodriguez, 63, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rodriguez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rodriguez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.
Mr. Rudolfi, 32, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rudolfi understands diabetes management and monitoring,
Mr. Sanchez, 47, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that
Mr. Sanchez understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanchez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Schmidt, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schmidt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmidt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Sigmon, 29, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sigmon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sigmon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
Mr. Stouffer, 63, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stouffer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stouffer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Streifel, 21, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Streifel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Streifel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Townsend, 37, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Townsend understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Townsend meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Trana, 46, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Trana understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Trana meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.
Mr. Villa, 34, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Villa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Villa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Wade, 59, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him
Mr. Yereance, 59, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yereance understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yereance meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 51 individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 25, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0042 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The 51 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person:
Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.
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.
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),
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the three year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Mr. Alomran, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Alomran understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alomran meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Aungier, 69, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Aungier understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Aungier meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Ms. Austin, 41, has had ITDM since 2017. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Austin understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Austin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.
Mr. Baines, 63, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Baines understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Baines meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Blythe, 77, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Blythe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blythe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.
Mr. Brown, 57, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brown understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.
Mr. Cangialosi, 38, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cangialosi understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cangialosi meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.
Mr. Chesemore, 44, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Chesemore understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chesemore meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Minnesota.
Mr. Clindaniel, 23, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Clindaniel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clindaniel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Decker, 67, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Decker understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Decker meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D CDL from Kentucky.
Mr. Dice, 68, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dice understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dice meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.
Mr. Downer, 68, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Downer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Downer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.
Mr. Ellis, 61, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist
Mr. Figueroa, 49, has had ITDM since 1970. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Figueroa understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Figueroa meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Follis, 33, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Follis understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Follis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ilinois.
Ms. Gardocki, 25, has had ITDM since 2009. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2017 and certified that she has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Gardocki understands diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Gardocki meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gatzke, 50, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gatzke understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gatzke meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut.
Mr. Gibbs, 35, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gibbs understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gibbs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri.
Mr. Gibson, 52, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gibson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gibson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.
Mr. Gough, 68, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gough understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gough meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.
Mr. Green, 45, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Green understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Green meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey.
Mr. Grosso, 54, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Hollingsworth, 49, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hollingsworth understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hollingsworth meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. James, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. James understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. James meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Jarrett, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jarrett understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jarrett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Nebraska.
Mr. King, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. King understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. King meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from Oregon.
Mr. Klima, 65, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Klima understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Klima meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas.
Mr. Kuney, 57, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kuney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kuney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. Landers, 60, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Landers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Landers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Launsby, 51, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Launsby understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Launsby meets the
Mr. Leedom, 45, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Leedom understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leedom meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Delaware.
Mr. Liggins, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Liggins understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Liggins meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.
Mr. Lynn, 29, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lynn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lynn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Florida.
Mr. McBride, 27, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McBride understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McBride meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.
Mr. McDaniel, 62, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McDaniel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McDaniel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Hampshire.
Mr. Nelson, 55, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nelson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nelson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Nodine, 51, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nodine understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nodine meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.
Mr. Pawlikowski, 28, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pawlikowski understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pawlikowski meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.
Mr. Post, 65, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or
Mr. Reyenga, 64, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Reyenga understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reyenga meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Ruby, 57, has had ITDM since 1981. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ruby understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ruby meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.
Mr. Schinner, 67, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schinner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schinner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.
Mr. Shannon, 53, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Shannon understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shannon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana.
Mr. Singer, 53, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Singer understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Singer meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho.
Mr. Sorenson, 58, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sorenson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sorenson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.
Mr. Tello, 51, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tello understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tello meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.
Mr. VonHagen, 47, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. VonHagen understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. VonHagen meets the requirements of the vision standard at
Mr. Windley, 40, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Windley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Windley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.
Mr. Wolfzahn, 28, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wolfzahn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wolfzahn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Massachusetts.
Mr. Worsley, 40, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Worsley understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Worsley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.
Mr. Yoder, 60, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yoder understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yoder meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date's section of the notice.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 1024–A, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(4) on the Internal Revenue Code.
Written comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the Internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held in Washington, DC.
The meeting will be held September 14, 2017.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20003.
Michelle A. Levitte, AP:SEPR:AAS, 290 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10007 (212) 298–2222 (not a toll free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at 999 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20003.
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of Information collection; request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the IRS's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the Form 8838–P, Consent To Extend the Time To Assess Tax Pursuant to the Gain Deferral Method Under Section 721(c).
Written comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of information collection; request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand the IRS's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the restructure of the current revenue procedure approach for issuing Opinion Letters regarding the qualification in form of Pre-approved Plans.
Written comments should be received on or before October 23, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Taquesha Cain, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War (FPOW) will meet September 13–15, 2017, from 9:00 a.m.–4:30 p.m. CST at the Westin Peachtree Plaza Hotel, 210 Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA 30303. The meeting is open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of benefits under Title 38 U.S.C., for Veterans who are FPOWs, and to make recommendations on the needs of such Veterans for compensation, health care, and rehabilitation.
On Wednesday, September 13, the Committee will convene an open session to recognize and hear briefings from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials and external stakeholders.
On Thursday, September 14, the Committee will assemble an open session for discussion and hear briefings from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) officials and external stakeholders.
On Friday, September 15, the Committee will participate in a National POW/MIA Recognition Day Ceremony at the Atlanta VA Medical Center located at 1700 Clairmont Road, Decatur, GA 30033. At 12:00 p.m., the committee meeting will be formally adjourned.
FPOWs who wish to speak at the public forum are invited to submit a 1–2 page commentary for inclusion in official meeting records. Any member of the public may also submit a 1–2 page commentary for the Committee's review.
Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Leslie N. Williams, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War at
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 23, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Milagros Ortiz at (202) 461–4279 or FAX (202) 461–4301.
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, CVE invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of CVE's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of CVE's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 or the use of other forms of information technology.
Pub. L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
By direction of the Secretary.
Regulatory Information Service Center.
Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
The Update to the 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
Publication of the Update to the 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions represents a key component of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735) and Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 93390, January 30, 2017, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish semiannual regulatory agendas in the
In the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda) agencies report regulatory actions upcoming in the next year. Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” signed September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and Office of Management and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as part of the Unified Agenda. The complete update of the 2017 Unified Agenda contains the regulatory agendas for 66 Federal agencies, is available to the public at
The Update to the 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405.
For further information about specific regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each entry. To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., MVE, Room 2219F, Washington, DC 20405, (202) 482–7340. You may also send comments to us by email at:
The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared in the
The Update to the 2017 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the
These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 66 Federal agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are not included.
The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. The regulatory agendas of these agencies are available to the public at
The Regulatory Information Service Center compiles the Unified Agenda for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), part of the Office of Management and Budget. OIRA is responsible for overseeing the Federal Government's regulatory, paperwork, and information resource management activities, including implementation of Executive Order 12866 (incorporated by reference in Executive Order 13563). The Center also provides information about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive Office, the Congress, agency officials, and the public.
The activities included in the Unified Agenda are, in general, those that will have a regulatory action within the next 12 months. Agencies may choose to
Agencies prepared entries for this publication to give the public notice of their plans to review, propose, and issue or withdraw regulations. They have tried to predict their activities over the next 12 months as accurately as possible, but dates and schedules are subject to change. Agencies may withdraw some of the regulations now under development, and they may issue or propose other regulations not included in their agendas. Agency actions in the rulemaking process may occur before or after the dates they have listed. The Unified Agenda does not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear within it.
The Unified Agenda helps agencies comply with their obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and various Executive orders and other statutes.
The
The
The
Agency regulatory flexibility agendas are printed in a single daily edition of the
The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all participating agencies. In the online Agenda, users can select the particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
Each entry in the Unified Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking stages. The rulemaking stages are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on
A bullet (•) preceding the title of an entry indicates that the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is able to provide this cross-reference capability.
Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for entries with any combination of desired characteristics.
All entries in the online Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements including, at a minimum, the following information:
As defined in Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking action that will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or will adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The definition of an “economically significant” rule is similar but not identical to the definition of a “major” rule under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 104–121). (See below.)
A rulemaking that is not Economically Significant but is considered Significant by the agency. This category includes rules that the agency anticipates will be reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or rules that are a priority of the agency head. These rules may or may not be included in the agency's regulatory plan.
A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is neither Significant, nor Routine and Frequent, nor Informational/Administrative/Other.
A rulemaking that is a specific case of a multiple recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations and that does not alter the body of the regulation.
A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public of the activity.
Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
Some agencies that participated in the fall 2016 edition of The Regulatory Plan have chosen to include the following information for those entries that appeared in the Plan:
The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public rulemaking proceeding; a reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.
Copies of the
Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please contact the particular agency for further information.
All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are available in electronic form at
The Government Publishing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of significant and not significant regulations being developed in agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in conformance with Executive Orders (EO) 13771 “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The agenda also describes regulations affecting small entities as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354. This agenda also identifies regulatory actions that are being reviewed in compliance with section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We invite public comment on those actions as well as any regulation consistent with EO 13563.
USDA has attempted to list all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently missed. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing. Also, the dates shown for the steps of each action are estimated and are not commitments to act on or by the date shown.
USDA's complete regulatory agenda is available online at
(1) Rules that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
For further information on any specific entry shown in this agenda, please contact the person listed for that action. For general comments or inquiries about the agenda, please contact Michael Poe, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720–3257.
Various Secretary's Rules and Regulations (years of 1911, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, 1950, and 1963) and Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 251.15 provide direction for the use of NFS lands for mineral development activities associated with the exercise of reserved mineral rights. These existing rules for reserved minerals development activities also include requirements for protection of NFS resources.
Currently, there are no formal regulations governing the use of NFS lands for activities associated with the exercise of outstanding mineral rights underlying those lands. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, section 2508, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to apply specified terms and conditions to surface-disturbing activities related to development of oil and gas on certain lands with outstanding mineral rights on the Allegheny National Forest, and promulgate regulations implementing that section.
The Forest Service initiated rulemaking for the use of NFS lands for development activities associated with both reserved and outstanding mineral rights with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In compliance with Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended, the Department of Commerce (Commerce), in the spring and fall of each year, publishes in the
Commerce's spring 2017 regulatory agenda includes regulatory activities that are expected to be conducted during the period April 1, 2017, through March 31, 2018.
Commerce hereby publishes its spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
In addition, beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Within Commerce, the Office of the Secretary and various operating units may issue regulations. Among these operating units, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the Patent and Trademark Office issue the greatest share of Commerce's regulations.
A large number of regulatory actions reported in the Agenda deal with fishery management programs of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). To avoid repetition of programs and definitions, as well as to provide some understanding of the technical and institutional elements of NMFS' programs, an “Explanation of Information Contained in NMFS Regulatory Entries” is provided below.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council process for developing FMPs and amendments makes it difficult for NMFS to determine the significance and timing of some regulatory actions under consideration by the Councils at the time the semiannual regulatory agenda is published.
Commerce's spring 2017 regulatory agenda follows.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this semiannual agenda of regulatory documents, including those that are procurement-related, for public information and comments under Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda incorporates the objective and criteria, when applicable, of the regulatory reform program under the Executive Order and other regulatory guidance. It contains DoD regulations initiated by DoD Components that may have economic and environmental impact on State, local, or tribal interests under the criteria of Executive Order 12866. Although most DoD regulations listed in the agenda are of limited public impact, their nature may be of public interest and, therefore, are published to provide notice of rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation in the internal DoD rulemaking process. Members of the public may submit comments on individual proposed and interim final rulemakings at
This agenda updates the report published on December 23, 2016, and includes regulations expected to be issued and under review over the next 12 months. The next agenda is scheduled to be published in the fall of 2017.
The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is in the Unified Agenda available online.
For information concerning the overall DoD regulatory improvement program and for general semiannual agenda information, contact Ms. Patricia Toppings, telephone 571–372–0485, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–9010, or email:
For questions of a legal nature concerning the agenda and its statutory requirements or obligations, write to Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–1600, or call 703–697–2714.
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations, other than those which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Morgan Park, telephone 571–372–0489, or write to Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 9010 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–9010, or email:
For general information on Office of the Secretary regulations which are procurement-related, contact Ms. Jennifer Hawes, telephone 571–372–6115, or write to Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Room 3B941, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301–3060, or email:
For general information on Department of the Army regulations, contact Ms. Brenda Bowen, telephone 703–428–6173, or write to the U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: AAHS–RDR–C, Casey Building, Room 102, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22315–3860, or email:
For general information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations, contact Mr. Chip Smith, telephone 703–693–3644, or write to Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Policy and Legislation), 108 Army Pentagon, Room 2E569, Washington, DC 20310–0108, or email:
For general information on Department of the Navy regulations, contact LCDR Audrey Nichols, telephone 703–614–7408, or write to Department of the Navy, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Administrative Law Division (Code 13), Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Avenue SE., Suite 3000, Washington, DC 20374–5066, or email:
For general information on Department of the Air Force regulations, contact Bao-Anh Trinh, telephone 703–614–8500, or write the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief, Information Dominance/Chief Information Officer (SAF CIO/A6), 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330–1800, or email:
For specific agenda items, contact the appropriate individual indicated in each DoD Component report.
This edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is composed of the regulatory status reports, including procurement-related regulatory status reports, from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Departments of the Army and Navy. Included also is the regulatory status report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose civil works functions fall under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866 and involve water resource projects and regulation of activities in waters of the United States.
In addition, this agenda, although published under the reporting requirements of Executive Order 12866, continues to be the DoD single-source reporting vehicle, which identifies regulations that are currently applicable under the various regulatory reform programs in progress. Therefore, DoD Components will identify those rules which come under the criteria of the:
a. Regulatory Flexibility Act;
b. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
c. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
Those DoD regulations, which are directly applicable under these statutes, will be identified in the agenda and their action status indicated. Generally, the regulatory status reports in this agenda will contain five sections: (1) Prerule stage; (2) proposed rule stage; (3) final rule stage; (4) completed actions; and (5) long-term actions. Where certain regulatory actions indicate that small entities are affected, the effect on these entities may not necessarily have significant economic impact on a
Although not a regulatory agency, DoD will continue to participate in regulatory initiatives designed to reduce economic costs and unnecessary burdens upon the public. Comments and recommendations are invited on the rules reported and should be addressed to the DoD Component representatives identified in the regulatory status reports. Although sensitive to the needs of the public, as well as regulatory reform, DoD reserves the right to exercise the exemptions and flexibility permitted in its rulemaking process in order to proceed with its overall defense-oriented mission. The publishing of this agenda does not waive the applicability of the military affairs exemption in section 553 of title 5 U.S.C. and section 3 of Executive Order 12866.
This rule will increase costs to offerors, including small entities, if only one offer is received in response to a competitive solicitation, unless another exception to certified cost or pricing data applies (such as commercial item acquisitions or acquisitions valued at less than $750,000).
The DFARS will include lists of defense-unique statutes, and Governmentwide contract clause requirements not expressly authorized
This rule is expected to reduce costs to contractors, including small entities, by reducing the number of regulations applicable to commercial items, including commercially available off-the-shelf items.
(1) Section 817 amends 37 U.S.C. 418, adding new paragraph (d), which extends domestic source requirements to acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold when acquiring athletic footwear to be furnished to enlisted members of the Armed Forces upon their initial entry into the Armed Forces.
(2) Section 881(b) amends 10 U.S.C. 2500(1) by adding Australia and the United Kingdom to the definition of “National Technology and Industrial Base.” 10 U.S.C. 2534 restricts acquisition of certain items to items from manufacturers that are part of the national technology and industrial base.
(3) Section 1296 amends section 1211 of the NDAA for FY 2006 (Pub. L. 109–163), which was also amended by the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112–81). It prohibits purchase of items from a Communist Chinese military company that meet the definition of goods and services controlled as munitions items when moved to the 600 series of the Commerce Control List of the Export Administration Regulations of the Department of Commerce.
Implementation of section 817 in the DFARS may result in some increased costs to the Government for purchase of domestic athletic footwear; however, this will benefit the manufacturers of domestic footwear and components thereof. Implementation of section 881(b) is not expected to increase costs to contractors or the Government and will improve the integration of the national technology and industrial base, expanding to include several close allies (United Kingdom and Australia). Implementation of section 1296 is not expected to significantly increase costs to contractors or the Government; there may be some costs of transition to other sources if restricted parts are currently being purchased from China.
(1) Certified cost or pricing data requirements for contracts, subcontracts, or modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 million awarded under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. The head of the agency may determine that submission of cost or pricing data should be required based on past performance of the specific small business concern or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award.
(2) The records examination requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2313 that precludes the head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, from examining all contractor or subcontractor records related to the proposal for the contract or subcontract, the discussions conducted on the proposal, and the pricing of the contract or subcontract. This exception applies to contracts valued at less than $7.5 million that are awarded to a small business concern or nontraditional defense contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure or the Small Business Innovation Research Program. Notwithstanding this exception, the head of the agency may determine within 18 months of contract completion that auditing of records should be required based on past performance of the specific small business or nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information specific to the award.
This rule is expected to reduce costs for small business concerns or nontraditional defense contractors who are covered by the statutory exemptions.
(1) Performance-based payments shall not be conditioned upon costs incurred in contract performance but on the achievement of performance outcomes.
(2) Nontraditional defense contractors and other private sector companies shall be eligible for performance-based payments, consistent with best commercial practices.
(3) In order to receive performance-based payments, a contractor's accounting system shall be in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and there shall be no requirement for a contractor to develop Government-unique accounting systems or practices as a prerequisite for agreeing to receive performance-based payments.
Nothing in the rule shall be construed to grant the Defense Contract Audit Agency the authority to audit compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
The rule is not expected to increase costs for contractors, and the rule does not impact negotiated contract prices. The rule revises the contractual procedures for financing through performance-based payments and provides for increased utilization of this financing method for traditional and nontraditional defense contractors.
(1) How contracting officers may require the offeror to submit relevant information to support market research for price analysis;
(2) That an offeror may submit information or analysis relating to the value of a commercial item to aid in the determination of the reasonableness of the price of such item, and a contracting officer may consider such information or analysis pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2379;
(3) The head of an agency may not enter into a contract for facilities-related services, knowledge-based services (except engineering services), construction services, medical services, or transportation services that are not commercial services unless it is determined in writing by the appropriate authority that no commercial services are suitable to meet the agency's needs;
(4) That items valued at less than $10,000 that are purchased by a contractor for use in the performance of multiple contracts with the DoD and other parties and are not identifiable to any particular contract shall be treated as a commercial item; and
(5) That services provided by a business unit that is a nontraditional defense contractor (as that term is defined in 10 U.S.C. 2302(9)) shall be treated as commercial items, to the extent that such services use the same pool of employees as used for commercial customers and are priced using methodology similar to methodology used for commercial pricing.
DoD expects that this rule will reduce costs for contractors since certified cost or pricing data will not be required when contracting officers use commercial item procurement procedures for: Commingled items purchased by contractors for use in the performance of multiple contracts; commercial services (when DoD is obtaining facilities-related services, knowledge-based services (except engineering services), construction services, medical services, or transportation services); and services from nontraditional defense contractors. DoD does not expect this rule to increase costs for contractors, because this rule does not add to or remove any of the existing requirements for the submission of other than certified cost or pricing data for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of prices proposed for commercial items. While the use of market research and data to support a value analysis of commercial items will be encouraged, in accordance with the statutory language, both techniques are existing practices for making price reasonableness determinations.
(1) Establish a data collection system with regard to each purchase of services by a military department or defense agency in excess of $3 million for the following service acquisition portfolio groups: Logistics managements services, equipment-related services, knowledge-based services, and electronics and communications services; and
(2) Prepare an annual inventory, and submit to Congress a summary of the inventory, of activities performed during the preceding fiscal year pursuant to staff augmentation contracts on behalf of DoD.
To create the inventory required by the statute, DoD must collect information from contractors performing such services, which will be accomplished through the use of the Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (eCMRA). This rule amends the DFARS to provide instructions to contracting officers and contractors regarding reports to be submitted through eCMRA. As such, the rule will increase costs for contractors, including small entities; however, the new reporting requirements are necessary for DoD to comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2330a.
This rule is necessary in order to align the DFARS with enhancements made to the PPIRS–SR application in 2016, enhancements that better enable DoD to evaluate supplier past performance in order to prevent the acquisition of counterfeit parts. PPIRS–SR captures historical pricing data from various sources to compute “average price” paid, applies a common statistical methodology to derive an expected cost range for previously procured items, and alerts contracting officers of items considered “high-risk”(
The proposed rule does not increase costs for contractors; rather, the rule informs prospective suppliers that DoD will use PPIRS–SR as a source of information for past performance data.
By removing the outdated DFARS coverage of consolidation, this rule will reduce confusion among the DoD contracting workforce caused by different requirements in the FAR and DFARS. Accordingly, this rule is not expected to increase costs for offerors or contractors.
Five respondents submitted comments on the proposed rule, which resulted in one clarification in the final rule. This rule could have some cost impact on contractors, including small entities, if a contractor-approved supplier is disapproved by DoD, but this would only occur if DoD had identified substantial risk of counterfeit parts from such supplier. DoD shares the desire of the contractors to avoid significant schedule delays and cost increases, which would result in impairment of operational readiness.
There were no public comments submitted in response to the proposed rule. This rule will not increase the cost of contracting for contractors. However, this rule may have an economic impact on small entities, since the rule expands opportunities for nonprofit organizations that will now be authorized to compete on solicitations that are set-aside for small businesses, when the acquisition of religious-related services on a U.S. military installation.
One respondent submitted comments on the proposed rule. This rule will increase costs for contractors, including
Department of Energy.
Semi-annual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared and is making available its portion of the semi-annual Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Agenda) pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The Agenda is a government-wide compilation of upcoming and ongoing regulatory activity, including a brief description of each rulemaking and a timetable for action. The Agenda also includes a list of regulatory actions completed since publication of the last Agenda. The Department of Energy's portion of the Agenda includes regulatory actions called for by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act and programmatic needs of DOE offices.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Agenda and providing users the ability to obtain information from the Agenda database. DOE's Spring 2017 Agenda can be accessed online by going to
DOE's regulatory flexibility agenda is made up of rulemakings setting energy efficiency standards and requirements applicable to DOE sites.
This RIN encompasses both the first rulemaking cycle to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSL's and also adopts a Definition Rule for GSLs. A regulatory flexibility analysis is required only in a GSL standards rule, and not in the Final Definition Rule.
DOE is also amending the test procedure to improve field representativeness. These amendments will take effect coincident with updated energy conservation standards and would be part of a new Appendix M1. The new Appendix M1 includes: (1) New higher external static pressure requirements for all units, including unique minimum external static pressure requirements for certain kinds of products; (2) new default fan power values for rating coil-only units; revisions to the heating load line in the calculation of HSPF; and (3) amendments to the test procedures for variable speed heat pumps to allow better representation of their low-ambient-temperature performance, including an optional 5 °F heating mode test.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and Executive Order (EO) 12866 require the semiannual issuance of an inventory of rulemaking actions under development throughout the Department, offering for public review summarized information about forthcoming regulatory actions.
Ann C. Agnew, Executive Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; (202) 690–5627.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal government's lead agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves. HHS enhances the health and well-being of Americans by promoting effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.
This Agenda presents the regulatory activities that the Department expects to undertake in the foreseeable future to advance this mission. HHS has an agency-wide effort to support the Agenda's purpose of encouraging more effective public participation in the regulatory process. For example, to encourage public participation, we regularly update our regulatory Web page (
The rulemaking abstracts included in this paper issue of the
Sunlamp products incorporate ultraviolet (UV) lamps and include devices such as UV tanning beds and booths. People who use sunlamp products are at increased risk of developing skin cancer and other illnesses, and sustaining injuries.
Paula Katz, Consumer Safety Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 1320, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
James Sharp, Health Insurance Specialist, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Center, MS: WB–06–05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244,
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This regulatory agenda is a semiannual summary of current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components. This agenda provides the public with information about DHS's regulatory activity. DHS expects that this information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, the Department's regulatory activity. DHS invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this agenda.
Please direct general comments and inquiries on the agenda to the Regulatory Affairs Law Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0485, Washington, DC 20528–0485.
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory actions identified in this agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
DHS provides this notice pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354, Sept. 19, 1980) and Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (Sept. 30, 1993) as incorporated in Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (Jan. 18, 2011), which require the Department to publish a semiannual agenda of regulations. The regulatory agenda is a summary of current and projected rulemakings, as well as actions completed since the publication of the last regulatory agenda for the Department. DHS's last semiannual regulatory agenda was published on December 23, 2016, at 81 FR 94756.
Beginning in fall 2007, the Internet became the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires Federal agencies to publish their regulatory flexibility agendas in the
The semiannual agenda of the Department conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center.
RIN: 1601–AA69
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636–15, 301 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636–15, 301 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20528,
Nancy Harvey, Policy Analyst, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Procurement Officer, Room 3636–15, 301 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20528,
Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, Economic Analysis Branch–Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
Mardi Ruth Thompson, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, Economic Analysis Branch–Cross Modal Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6028,
Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598–6002,
Molly Stubbs, ICE Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536,
Brad Tuttle, Attorney Advisor, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536,
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In accordance with section 4(b) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, HUD is publishing its agenda of regulations already issued or that are expected to be issued during the next several months. The agenda also includes rules currently in effect that are under review and describes those regulations that may affect small entities, as required by section 602 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with advance information about pending regulatory activities.
Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500; telephone number 202–708–3055. (This is not a toll-free number.) A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-impaired individuals (TTY) is available at 800–877–8339 (Federal Relay Service).
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735), as amended, requires each department or agency to prepare semiannually an agenda of: (1) Regulations that the department or agency has issued or expects to issue, and; (2) rules currently in effect that are under departmental or agency review. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612) requires each department or agency to publish semiannually a regulatory agenda of rules expected to be proposed or promulgated that are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of “small entities,” meaning small businesses, small organizations, or small governmental jurisdictions. Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act permit incorporation of the agenda required by these two authorities with any other prescribed agenda.
HUD's regulatory agenda combines the information required by Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. As in the past, HUD's complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
The Department is subject to certain rulemaking requirements set forth in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3531
HUD has attempted to list in this agenda all regulations and regulatory reviews pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions, but some may have been inadvertently omitted, or may have arisen too late to be included in the published agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Also, where a date is provided for the next rulemaking action, the date is an estimate and is not a commitment to act on or by the date shown.
Since the purpose of publication of the agenda is to encourage more effective public participation in the regulatory process by providing the public with early information about the Department's future regulatory actions, HUD invites all interested members of the public to comment on the rules listed in the agenda.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice provides the semiannual agenda of Department of the Interior (Department) rules scheduled for review or development between spring 2017 and spring 2018. The Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 require publication of the agenda.
Unless otherwise indicated, all agency contacts are located at the Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Please direct all comments and inquiries about these rules to the appropriate agency contact. Please direct general comments relating to the agenda to the Office of Executive Secretariat and Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, at the address above or at (202) 208–5257.
With this publication, the Department satisfies the requirement of Executive Order 12866 that the Department publish an agenda of rules that we have issued or expect to issue and of currently effective rules that we have scheduled for review.
Simultaneously, the Department meets the requirement of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In some cases, the Department has withdrawn rules that were placed on previous agendas for which there has been no publication activity or for which a proposed or interim rule was published. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this agenda. Withdrawal of a rule does not necessarily mean that the Department will not proceed with the rulemaking. Withdrawal allows the Department to assess the action further and determine whether rulemaking is appropriate. Following such an assessment, the Department may determine that certain rules listed as withdrawn under this agenda are appropriate for promulgation. If that determination is made, such rules will comply with Executive Order 13771.
RIN: 1004–AE16
Department of Justice.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Department of Justice is publishing its spring 2017 regulatory agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612 (1988).
Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Room 4252, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, (202) 514–8059.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
Office of the Secretary, Labor.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Internet has become the means for disseminating the entirety of the Department of Labor's semiannual regulatory agenda. However, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires publication of a regulatory flexibility agenda in the
Laura M. Dawkins, Director, Office of Regulatory and Programmatic Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S–2312, Washington, DC 20210; (202) 693–5959.
Information pertaining to a specific regulation can be obtained from the agency contact listed for that particular regulation.
Executive Order 12866 requires the semiannual publication of an agenda of regulations that contains a listing of all the regulations the Department of Labor expects to have under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review during the coming one-year period. The entirety of the Department's semiannual agenda is available online at
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 602) requires DOL to publish in the
All interested members of the public are invited and encouraged to let departmental officials know how our regulatory efforts can be improved, and are invited to participate in and comment on the review or development of the regulations listed on the Department's agenda.
EBSA is withdrawing this entry from the agenda at this time. Withdrawal of an entry does not necessarily mean that EBSA will not proceed with the rulemaking in the future. Withdrawal allows EBSA to assess the subject matter further and determine whether rulemaking in this area is appropriate. Following such an assessment, EBSA may determine that rulemaking is appropriate. If that determination is made, this or a similar matter will be included in succeeding semiannual agenda.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Unified agenda of Federal regulatory and deregulatory actions (regulatory agenda).
The Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. The intent of the Agenda is to provide the public with information about the Department of Transportation's regulatory activity planned for the next 12 months. It is expected that this information will enable the public to more effectively participate in the Department's regulatory process. The public is also invited to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on the Agenda in general to Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366–4723.
You should direct all comments and inquiries on particular items in the Agenda to the individual listed for the regulation or the general rulemaking contact person for the operating administration in appendix B.
Improvement of our regulations is a prime goal of the Department of Transportation (Department or DOT). Our regulations should be clear, simple, timely, fair, reasonable, and necessary. They should not be issued without appropriate involvement of the public; once issued, they should be periodically reviewed and revised, as needed, to ensure that they continue to meet the needs for which they originally were designed. To view additional information about the Department's regulatory activities online, go to
To help the Department achieve its goals and in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” (58 FR 51735; Oct. 4, 1993) and the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979), the Department prepares a semiannual regulatory agenda. It summarizes all current and projected rulemakings, reviews of existing regulations, and completed actions of the Department. These are matters on which action has begun or is projected during the next 12 months or for which action has been completed since the last Agenda.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued E.O. 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” 82 FR 9339 (January 30, 2017), which establishes principles for prioritizing an agency's regulatory and deregulatory actions. E.O. 13771 was shortly followed by E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” 82 FR 12285 (February 24, 2017), which identified processes for agencies to follow in overseeing their regulatory programs. This Agenda was prepared in accordance with both E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777, and the Department will continue to work internally, as well as with the Office of Management and Budget, to fully implement their principles into our rulemaking processes.
As part of our ongoing regulatory effort, the Department will likely revisit a number of proposed and final rulemakings to further streamline project delivery and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens; safety, however, will continue to be a priority. That's why we must ensure that regulatory decisions are rooted in analysis derived from sound science and data. They should also include risk-based analysis that prevents accidents before they happen, and considers the costs and benefits of new rulemakings.
As new automated technologies are rapidly advancing, they carry with them the potential to dramatically change commercial transportation and private travel, expanding access for millions and improving safety on our roads, rails, and in our skies. We are committed to ensuring the safe integration of these technologies into our transportation system.
We remain mindful, though, that infrastructure is the required underpinning of our country's world-class economy, so we will remain vigilant for opportunities where regulatory action can help strengthen and modernize our infrastructure.
The Agendas are based on reports submitted by the offices initiating the rulemaking and are reviewed by OST.
The Internet is the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda is available online at
Because publication in the
1. The agency's Agenda preamble;
2. Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
3. Any rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. These elements are: Sequence Number; Title; Section 610 Review, if applicable; Legal Authority; Abstract; Timetable; Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required; Agency Contact; and Regulation Identifier Number (RIN). Additional information (for detailed list, see section heading “Explanation of Information on the Agenda”) on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The Agenda covers all rules and regulations of the Department. We have classified rules as significant in the
An Office of Management and Budget memorandum, dated March 2, 2017, requires the format for this Agenda.
First, the Agenda is divided by initiating offices. Then the Agenda is divided into five categories: (1) Prerule stage, (2) proposed rule stage, (3) final rule stage, (4) long-term actions, and (5) completed actions. For each entry, the Agenda provides the following information: (1) Its “significance”; (2) a short, descriptive title; (3) its legal basis; (4) the related regulatory citation in the Code of Federal Regulations; (5) any legal deadline and, if so, for what action (
For nonsignificant regulations issued routinely and frequently as a part of an established body of technical requirements (such as the Federal Aviation Administration's Airspace Rules), to keep those requirements operationally current, we only include the general category of the regulations, the identity of a contact office or official, and an indication of the expected number of regulations; we do not list individual regulations.
In the “Timetable” column, we use abbreviations to indicate the particular documents being considered. ANPRM stands for Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, SNPRM for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and NPRM for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Listing a future date in this column does not mean we have made a decision to issue a document; it is the earliest date on which a rulemaking document may publish. In addition, these dates are based on current schedules. Information received after the issuance of this Agenda could result in a decision not to take regulatory action or in changes to proposed publication dates. For example, the need for further evaluation could result in a later publication date; evidence of a greater need for the regulation could result in an earlier publication date.
Finally, a dot (•) preceding an entry indicates that the entry appears in the Agenda for the first time.
Our Agenda is intended primarily for the use of the public. Since its inception, we have made modifications and refinements that we believe provide the public with more helpful information, as well as making the Agenda easier to use. We would like you, the public, to make suggestions or comments on how the Agenda could be further improved.
We also seek your suggestions on which of our existing regulations you believe need to be reviewed to determine whether they should be revised or revoked. We particularly draw your attention to the Department's review plan in appendix D. In response to Executive Order 13563 “Retrospective Review and Analysis of Existing Rules,” in 2011 we prepared a retrospective review plan providing more detail on the process we use to conduct reviews of existing rules, including changes in response to Executive Order 13563. Any updates related to our retrospective plan and review results can be found at
The Department is especially interested in obtaining information on requirements that have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” and, therefore, must be reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you have any suggested regulations, please submit them to us, along with your explanation of why they should be reviewed.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, comments are specifically invited on regulations that we have targeted for review under section 610 of the Act. The phrase (sec. 610 Review) appears at the end of the title for these reviews. Please see appendix D for the Department's section 610 review plans.
Executive Orders 13132 and 13175 require us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input” by State, local, and tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism or tribal implications. These policies are defined in the Executive orders to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects” on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and them, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and various levels of Government or Indian tribes. Therefore, we encourage State and local Governments or Indian tribes to provide us with information about how the Department's rulemakings impact them.
The Department is publishing this regulatory Agenda in the
To obtain a copy of a specific regulatory document in the Agenda, you should communicate directly with the contact person listed with the regulation at the address below. We note that most, if not all, such documents, including the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are
(Name of contact person), (Name of the DOT agency), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. (For the Federal Aviation Administration, substitute the following address: Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591).
The following is a list of persons who can be contacted within the Department for general information concerning the rulemaking process within the various operating administrations.
FAA—Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–7833.
FHWA—Jennifer Outhouse, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–0761.
FMCSA—Steven J. LaFreniere, Regulatory Ombudsman, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–0596.
NHTSA—Steve Wood, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2992.
FRA—Elliott Gillooly, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 493–6047.
FTA—Chaya Koffman, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–3101.
SLSDC—Carrie Mann Lavigne, Chief Counsel, 180 Andrews Street, Massena, NY 13662; telephone (315) 764–3200.
PHMSA—Stephen Gordon, Office of Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–1101.
MARAD—Gabriel Chavez, Office of Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–2621.
OST—Jonathan Moss, Assistant General Counsel for Regulation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366–4723.
All comments via the Internet are submitted through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at the following address:
The public also may review regulatory dockets at or deliver comments on proposed rulemakings to the Dockets Office at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12–140, Washington, DC 20590, 1–800–647–5527. Working Hours: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Department of Transportation has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or revoked. Our Regulatory Policies and Procedures require such reviews. We also have responsibilities under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (January 18, 2011), E.O. 13771 “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” E.O. 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda,” and section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to conduct such reviews. This includes the designation of a Regulatory Reform Officer, the establishment of a Regulatory Reform Task Force, and the use of plain language techniques in new rules and considering its use in existing rules when we have the opportunity and resources to revise them. We are committed to continuing our reviews of existing rules and, if it is needed, will initiate rulemaking actions based on these reviews.
Section 610 requires that we conduct reviews of rules that: (1) Have been published within the last 10 years, and (2) have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (SEIOSNOSE). It also requires that we publish in the
Some reviews may be conducted earlier than scheduled. For example, to the extent resources permit, the plain language reviews will be conducted more quickly. Other events, such as accidents, may result in the need to conduct earlier reviews of some rules. Other factors may also result in the need to make changes; for example, we may make changes in response to public comment on this plan or in response to a presidentially mandated review. If there is any change to the review plan, we will note the change in the following Agenda. For any section 610 review, we will provide the required notice prior to the review.
Generally, the agencies have divided their rules into 10 different groups and plan to analyze one group each year. For purposes of these reviews, a year will coincide with the fall-to-fall schedule for publication of the Agenda. Thus, Year 1 (2008) begins in the fall of 2008 and ends in the fall of 2009; Year 2 (2009) begins in the fall of 2009 and ends in the fall of 2010, and so on. We request public comment on the timing of the reviews. For example, is there a reason for scheduling an analysis and review for a particular rule earlier than we have? Any comments concerning the plan or particular analyses should be submitted to the regulatory contacts listed in appendix B, General Rulemaking Contact Persons.
The agency will analyze each of the rules in a given year's group to determine whether any rule has a SEIOSNOSE and, thus, requires review in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The level of analysis will, of course, depend on the nature of the rule and its applicability. Publication of agencies' section 610 analyses listed each fall in this Agenda provides the public with notice and an opportunity to comment consistent with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We request that public comments be submitted to us early in the analysis year concerning the small entity impact of the rules to help us in making our determinations.
In each fall Agenda, the agency will publish the results of the analyses it has completed during the previous year. For rules that had a negative finding on SEIOSNOSE, we will give a short explanation (
The agency will also examine the specified rules to determine whether any other reasons exist for revising or revoking the rule or for rewriting the rule in plain language. In each fall Agenda, the agency will also publish information on the results of the examinations completed during the previous year.
The Agenda identifies the pending DOT section 610 Reviews by inserting “(Section 610 Review)” after the title for the specific entry. For further information on the pending reviews, see the Agenda entries at
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has elected to use the two-step, two-year process used by most Department of Transportation (DOT) modes in past plans. As such, the FAA has divided its rules into 10 groups as displayed in the table below. During the first year (the “analysis year”), all rules published during the previous 10 years within a 10% block of the regulations will be analyzed to identify those with a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (SEISNOSE). During the second year (the “review year”), each rule identified in the analysis year as having a SEISNOSE will be reviewed in accordance with Section 610(b) to determine if it should be continued without change or changed to minimize impact on small entities. Results of those reviews will be published in the DOT Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended (RFA), sections 601 through 612 of Title 5, United States Code (5 U.S.C.)) requires Federal regulatory agencies to analyze all proposed and final rules to determine their economic impact on small entities, which includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The primary purpose of the RFA is to establish as a principle of regulatory issuance that Federal agencies endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of entities subject to the regulation. The FAA performed the required RFA analyses of each final rulemaking action
Section 610 of 5 U.S.C. requires government agencies to periodically review all regulations that will have a SEISNOSE. The FAA must analyze each rule within 10 years of its publication date.
The RFA does not define “significant economic impact.” Therefore, there is no clear rule or number to determine when a significant economic impact occurs. However, the Small Business Administration (SBA) states that significance should be determined by considering the size of the business, the size of the competitor's business, and the impact the same regulation has on larger competitors.
Likewise, the RFA does not define “substantial number.” However, the legislative history of the RFA suggests that a substantial number must be at least one but does not need to be an overwhelming percentage such as more than half. The SBA states that the substantiality of the number of small businesses affected should be determined on an industry-specific basis.
This analysis consisted of the following three steps:
• Review of the number of small entities affected by the amendments to parts 91 through 105.
• Identification and analysis of all amendments to parts 91 through 105 since 2006 to determine whether any still have or now have a SEISNOSE.
• Review of the FAA Office of Aviation Policy, and Plans regulatory flexibility assessment of each amendment performed as required by the RFA.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted regulations in title 23 of the CFR, chapter I, related to the Federal-Aid Highway Program. These regulations implement and carry out the provisions of Federal law relating to the administration of Federal aid for highways. The primary law authorizing Federal aid for highway is chapter I of title 23 of the U.S.C. 145 of title 23, expressly provides for a federally assisted State program. For this reason, the regulations adopted by the FHWA in title 23 of the CFR primarily relate to the requirements that States must meet to receive Federal funds for the
Department of the Treasury.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This notice is given pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), which require the publication by the Department of a semiannual agenda of regulations.
The Agency contact identified in the item relating to that regulation.
The semiannual regulatory agenda includes regulations that the Department has issued or expects to issue and rules currently in effect that are under departmental or bureau review.
Beginning with the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the primary medium for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
(1) Rules that are in the regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that have been identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda available on the Internet.
The semiannual agenda of the Department of the Treasury conforms to the Unified Agenda format developed by the Regulatory Information Service Center (RISC).
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board submits the following agenda of proposed regulatory activities which may be conducted by the agency during the next 12 months. This regulatory agenda may be revised by the agency during the coming months as a result of action taken by the Board.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004–1111.
For information concerning Board regulations and proposed actions, contact Gretchen Jacobs, General Counsel, (202) 272–0040 (voice) or (202) 272–0062 (TTY).
Environmental Protection Agency.
Semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda and semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the semiannual regulatory agenda online (the e-Agenda) at
• Regulations in the semiannual regulatory agenda that are under development, completed, or canceled since the last agenda; and
• Reviews of regulations with small business impacts under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
If you have questions or comments about a particular action, please get in touch with the agency contact listed in each agenda entry. If you have general questions about the semiannual regulatory agenda, please contact: Caryn Muellerleile (
EPA is committed to a regulatory strategy that effectively achieves the Agency's mission of protecting the environment and the health, welfare, and safety of Americans while also supporting economic growth, job creation, competitiveness, and innovation. EPA publishes the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda to update the public about regulatory activity undertaken in support of this mission. Within the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, EPA provides notice of our plans to review, propose, and issue regulations.
EPA's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda also includes information about rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and review of those regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
Within this document, EPA explains in greater detail the types of actions and information available in the Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, the opportunity to suggest regulations that may be appropriate for retrospective review, and actions that are currently undergoing review specifically for impacts on small entities.
“E-Agenda,” “online regulatory agenda,” and “semiannual regulatory agenda” all refer to the same comprehensive collection of information that, until 2007, was published in the
“Regulatory Flexibility Agenda” refers to a document that contains information about regulations that may have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We continue to publish it in the
“Unified Regulatory Agenda” refers to the collection of all agencies' agendas with an introduction prepared by the Regulatory Information Service Center facilitated by the General Service Administration.
“Regulatory Agenda Preamble” refers to the document you are reading now. It appears as part of the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and introduces both the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda and the e-Agenda.
“Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker” refers to an online portal to EPA's priority rules and retrospective reviews of existing regulations. This portal is available at
“610 Review” is an action EPA is committed to reviewing within ten years of promulgating a final rule that has or may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA maintains a list of these actions at
A number of environmental laws authorize EPA's actions, including but not limited to:
• Clean Air Act (CAA),
• Clean Water Act (CWA),
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund),
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Not only must EPA comply with environmental laws, but also administrative legal requirements that apply to the issuance of regulations, such as: The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA), and the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
EPA also meets a number of requirements contained in numerous Executive Orders: 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs” (82 FR 9339, Feb. 3, 2017); 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); 12898, “Environmental Justice” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994); 13045, “Children's Health Protection” (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997); 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999); 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000); 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
You can make your voice heard by getting in touch with the contact person provided in each agenda entry. EPA encourages you to participate as early in the process as possible. You may also participate by commenting on proposed rules published in the
Instructions on how to submit your comments are provided in each Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). To be most effective, comments should contain information and data that support your position and you also should explain why EPA should incorporate your suggestion in the rule or other type of action. You can be particularly helpful and persuasive if you provide examples to illustrate your concerns and offer specific alternatives.
EPA believes its actions will be more cost effective and protective if the development process includes stakeholders working with us to help identify the most practical and effective solutions to problems. EPA encourages you to become involved in its rule and policymaking process. For more information about public involvement in EPA activities, please visit
EPA includes regulations in the e-Agenda. However, there is no legal significance to the omission of an item from the agenda, and EPA generally does not include the following categories of actions:
• Administrative actions such as delegations of authority, changes of address, or phone numbers;
• Under the CAA: Revisions to state implementation plans; equivalent methods for ambient air quality monitoring; deletions from the new source performance standards source categories list; delegations of authority to states; area designations for air quality planning purposes;
• Under FIFRA: Registration-related decisions, actions affecting the status of currently registered pesticides, and data call-ins;
• Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act: Actions regarding pesticide tolerances and food additive regulations;
• Under RCRA: Authorization of State solid waste management plans; hazardous waste delisting petitions;
• Under the CWA: State Water Quality Standards; deletions from the section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants; suspensions of toxic testing requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); delegations of NPDES authority to States;
• Under SDWA: Actions on State underground injection control programs.
Meanwhile, the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda includes:
• Actions likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
• Rules the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the RFA.
EPA has one ongoing 610 review at this time.
You can choose how to organize the agenda entries online by specifying the characteristics of the entries of interest in the desired individual data fields for both the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Regulatory Flexibility Agenda entries include only the nine categories of information that are required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and by
E-Agenda entries include:
a. Economically Significant: Under Executive Order 12866, a rulemaking that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities.
b. Other Significant: A rulemaking that is not economically significant but is considered significant for other reasons. This category includes rules that may:
1. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
2. Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients; or
3. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in Executive Order 12866.
c. Substantive, Nonsignificant: A rulemaking that has substantive impacts but is not Significant, Routine and Frequent, or Informational/Administrative/Other.
d. Routine and Frequent: A rulemaking that is a specific case of a recurring application of a regulatory program in the Code of Federal Regulations (
e. Informational/Administrative/Other: An action that is primarily informational or pertains to an action outside the scope of Executive Order 12866.
EPA posts monthly information of new rulemakings that the Agency's senior managers have decided to develop. This list is also distributed via email. You can find the current list, known as the Action Initiation List (AIL), at
The Regulatory Information Service Center and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs have a Federal regulatory dashboard that allows users to view the Regulatory Agenda database (
Some actions listed in the Agenda include a URL that provides additional information about the action.
When EPA publishes either an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
EPA's Regulatory Development and Retrospective Review Tracker (
Section 610 of the RFA requires that an agency review, within 10 years of promulgation, each rule that has or will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. At this time, EPA has one ongoing 610 review and is completing one 610 review.
EPA established an official public docket for this 610 Review. EPA is no longer accepting comment on the review itself, but comments received in 2016 can be accessed at
For each of EPA's rulemakings, consideration is given to whether there will be any adverse impact on any small entity. EPA attempts to fit the regulatory requirements, to the extent feasible, to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation.
Under RFA as amended by SBREFA, the Agency must prepare a formal analysis of the potential negative impacts on small entities, convene a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel (proposed rule stage), and prepare a Small Entity Compliance Guide (final rule stage) unless the Agency certifies a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For more detailed information about the Agency's policy and practice with respect to implementing RFA/SBREFA, please visit EPA's RFA/SBREFA Web site at
Finally, we would like to thank those of you who choose to join with us in making progress on the complex issues involved in protecting human health and the environment. Collaborative efforts such as EPA's open rulemaking process are a valuable tool for addressing the problems we face, and the regulatory agenda is an important part of that process.
Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Michelle Price, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Erik Winchester, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460,
General Services Administration (GSA).
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda.
This agenda announces the proposed regulatory actions that GSA plans for the next 12 months and those that were completed since the fall 2016 edition. This agenda was developed under the guidelines of Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” GSA's purpose in publishing this agenda is to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. GSA also invites interested persons to recommend existing significant regulations for review to determine whether they should be modified or eliminated. Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Since the fall 2007 edition, the Internet has been the basic means for disseminating the Unified Agenda. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the Agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Any rules that the Agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's Agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet. In addition, for fall editions of the Agenda, the entire Regulatory Plan will continue to be printed in the
Joanne Sosa, Regulatory Secretariat Division at (202) 501–4755.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
NASA's regulatory agenda describes those regulations being considered for development or amendment by NASA, the need and legal basis for the actions being considered, the name and telephone number of the knowledgeable official, whether a regulatory analysis is required, and the status of regulations previously reported.
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of the Mission Support Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546.
Cheryl E. Parker, (202) 358–0252.
OMB guidelines dated March 2, 2017, “Spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” require a regulatory agenda of those regulations under development and review to be published in the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This Regulatory Agenda is a semiannual summary of current and projected regulatory and deregulatory actions and completed actions of the Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA expects that this summary information will enable the public to be more aware of, and effectively participate in, SBA's regulatory and deregulatory activities. SBA invites the public to submit comments on any aspect of this Agenda.
Please direct general comments or inquiries to Imelda A. Kish, Law Librarian, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205–6849,
Please direct specific comments and inquiries on individual regulatory activities identified in this Agenda to the individual listed in the summary of the regulation as the point of contact for that regulation.
SBA is fully committed to implementing the Administration's regulatory reform policies, as established by Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017) and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (February 24, 2017). In order to fully implement the goal of these executive orders, SBA seeks feedback from the public in identifying any SBA regulations that affected parties believe impose unnecessary burdens or costs that exceed their benefits; eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation; or are ineffective or outdated.
Publication in the
This rule will make four changes to the Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program. The first changes the threshold for notification to SBA of changes in the contract or bond amount. Second, the change will require sureties to submit quarterly contract completion reports. Third, SBA will increase the eligible contract limit for the Quick Bond Application and Agreement from $250,000 to $400,000. Finally, the rule will increase the guarantee percentage in the Preferred Surety Bond program to reflect the statutory change made by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016. The guarantee percentage will increase from 70% to 80% or 90%, depending on contract size and socioeconomic factors currently in effect in the Prior Approval Program.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
This agenda provides summary descriptions of regulations being developed by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council in compliance with Executive Order 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This agenda is being published to allow interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division has attempted to list all regulations pending at the time of publication, except for minor and routine or repetitive actions; however, unanticipated requirements may result in the issuance of regulations that are not included in this agenda. There is no legal significance to the omission of an item from this listing.
Published proposed rules may be reviewed in their entirety at the Government's rulemaking Web site at
Joanne Sosa, Regulatory Secretariat Division, 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, or via telephone at 202–501–4755.
DoD, GSA, and NASA, under their several statutory authorities, jointly issue and maintain the FAR through periodic issuance of changes published in the
This rule will ensure uniform implementation of this FAR change across government contracts and avoid the proliferation of agency actions (
In its final rule, SBA has clarified that, as a general matter, its small business contracting regulations apply regardless of the place of performance. In light of these changes, there is a need to amend the FAR both to bring its coverage into alignment with SBA's regulation and to give agencies the tools they need especially the ability to use set-asides to maximize opportunities for small businesses overseas.
SBA intends to include contracts performed outside of the United States in agencies' prime contracting goals beginning in FY 2016. Although inclusion for goaling purposes is not dependent on FAR changes, amending FAR part 19 will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States.
This rule will allow agencies to take advantage of the tools authorized for providing small business opportunities for contracts awarded outside of the United States. This will make it easier for small businesses to receive additional opportunities for contracts performed outside of the United States.
This rule implements sections 1812, paragraph (a) of section 1813 and paragraph (b) of section 1821 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2017, which amends section 15(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(k)). Additionally the rule will include existing duties prescribed in section 15(k) of the Small Business Act that are not currently listed in the FAR.
The NISP Contracts Classification System (NCCS) is being deployed as a module within the existing WAWF platform to provide a centralized repository for classified contract security requirements and automate the DD Form 254 processes and workflows. The rule also clarifies that a unique CAGE code is required for each location of performance listed on a DD Form 254 and that System for Award Management (SAM) registration is only required for the business location listed on the contract. The DD Form 254 is used to convey security requirements regarding classified information to contractors and subcontractors and must be submitted to DSS when contractors or subcontractors require access to classified information. On average, approximately 130,000 forms are received each year from 61 agencies and components. These forms are submitted manually and there is no central repository for the form. The rule will provide a centralized repository for classified contract security requirements and supporting data while automating the DD Form 254 processes and workflows. By using this form, burden will reduce.
The proposed revision will emphasize that contractors must use mandatory sources of supply in service contracts and to update the procedures associated with purchases made through the AbilityOne Program to conform to the current Committee regulatory administration of this statutory program. The rule will clarify the obligation for Government agencies to satisfy their requirements for certain supplies and services from the Procurement List maintained by the Committee.
While all action involved on the rule is internal to the Government, the documentation requirement ensures a contracting officer considers contract vehicles under the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI). In doing so, the rule will raise the visibility of these strategic sourcing solutions, promote their use, and help to better leverage the Government's buying power.
The GAO report indicates that the FAR needed additional clarification of justification to help ensure that agencies are applying the requirement consistently. This rule provides such guidance, including when justification is necessary, how contracting officers should comply, and when a separate sole-source justification is necessary for out-of-scope modifications to 8(a) sole-source contracts.
The rule increases small business participation in Federal prime contracts by ensuring that small businesses have greater access to multiple award contracts and clarifying the procedures for submitting proposals for partial set-asides, reserves, and orders placed under such contracts.
This rule provides for a uniform policy for the Federal Government to prohibit Federal contractors from discriminating against employees and job applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of other employees or applicants.
The rule clarifies agency acquisition personnel are permitted and encouraged to engage in responsible and constructive exchanges with industry, in a manner consistent with existing law and regulation and without promoting an unfair competitive advantage.
This rule implements the Department of Labor (DOL) interim final rule published in the
This change will help mitigate the growing threat that counterfeit items pose when used in systems vital to an agency's mission. The primary benefit of this rule is to reduce the risk of counterfeit items entering the supply chain by ensuring that contractors report suspect items to a widely available database.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is publishing a semiannual agenda of rulemakings that the Commission expects to propose or promulgate over the next year. The Commission welcomes comments from small entities and others on the agenda.
Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, (202) 418–5964,
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601,
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda, the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in the agenda.
Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an agenda of rulemakings that it presently expects may be considered during the course of the next year. Subject to a determination for each rule, it is possible as a general matter that some of these rules may have some impact on small entities.
The Commission's spring 2017 regulatory flexibility agenda is included in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at
David E. Aron, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581,
Owen Kopon, Special Counsel, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) is publishing this agenda as part of the Spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The CFPB reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018. The next agenda will be published in fall 2017, and will update this agenda through fall 2018. Publication of this agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This information is current as of April 7, 2017.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.
A staff contact is included for each regulatory item listed herein.
The CFPB is publishing its spring 2017 Agenda as part of the Spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda lists the regulatory matters that the CFPB reasonably anticipates having under consideration during the period from May 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018, as described further below.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 (Dodd-Frank Act), the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. These authorities include the ability to issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial laws, which transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on July 21, 2011. The Bureau's general purpose as specified in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive.
The CFPB is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services that are not reflected in this notice because the Unified Agenda is limited to rulemaking activities. Section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act specifies the objectives of the Bureau, including providing consumers with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions; protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination; addressing outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations; enforcing Federal consumer financial law consistently in order to promote fair competition, without regard to the status of a covered person as a depository institution; and promoting the transparent and efficient operation of markets for consumer financial products and services to facilitate access and innovation. The CFPB's regulatory work in pursuit of those objectives can be grouped into three main categories: (1) Implementing statutory directives; (2) other efforts to address market failures, facilitate fair competition among financial services providers, and improve consumer understanding; and (3) modernizing, clarifying, and streamlining consumer financial regulations to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens.
Much of the Bureau's rulemaking work is focusing on implementing directives mandated in the Dodd-Frank Act and other statutes. As part of these rulemakings, the Bureau is working to achieve the consumer protection objectives of the statutes while minimizing regulatory burden on financial services providers and facilitating a smooth implementation process for both industry and consumers.
For example, the Bureau is continuing efforts to facilitate implementation of critical consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act that guard against mortgage market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant financial crisis in several decades. Since 2013, the Bureau has issued regulations as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to implement certain protections for mortgage originations and servicing, integrate various Federal mortgage disclosures, and amend mortgage reporting requirements under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The Bureau is conducting follow-up rulemakings as warranted to address issues that have arisen during the implementation process for these rules and to provide greater clarification and certainty to financial services providers. The Bureau has three such efforts underway at this time:
• The Bureau expects to issue a final rule this summer to make certain adjustments and clarifications to prior rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act to combine several Federal mortgage disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The consolidated disclosures rule is the cornerstone of the Bureau's broader “Know Before You Owe” mortgage initiative.
• The Bureau is conducting two follow-up rulemakings to facilitate compliance with its prior rule to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to HMDA, which largely takes effect in 2018, as well as provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that also concern data collection and reporting. The Bureau is also continuing to work closely with industry and other regulators to streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting in conjunction with implementation of the Dodd-Frank amendments.
• The Bureau is expecting to issue a small final rule later this summer making technical corrections to the mortgage servicing rule that the Bureau issued in August 2016 under Regulation X (which implements RESPA) and Regulation Z (which implements TILA).
The Bureau is also starting work to implement section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends ECOA to require financial institutions to report information concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. The Bureau is focusing on outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in the small business lending market and of the potential ways to implement section 1071. The CFPB then expects to begin developing proposed regulations concerning the data to be collected, potential ways to minimize burdens on lenders, and appropriate procedures and privacy protections needed for
The Bureau is considering rules in places where there are substantial market failures that make it difficult for consumers to engage in informed decision making and otherwise protect their own interests. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act directs the Bureau to focus on activities that promote fair competition among financial services providers, which itself has substantial benefits for consumers.
For example, the Bureau released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in June 2016, building on several years of research documenting consumer harms from practices related to payday loans, auto title loans, and other similar credit products. In particular, the Bureau is concerned that product structure, lack of underwriting, and certain other lender practices are interfering with consumer decision making with regard to such products and trapping large numbers of consumers in extended cycles of debt that they do not expect. The Bureau is also concerned that certain lenders' payment collection practices are causing substantial harm to consumers, including substantial unexpected fees and heightened risk of losing their checking accounts. The Bureau continues to believe that the concerns articulated in the NPRM are substantial, and is carefully considering more than one million comments received in response to the proposal with respect to how best to address those concerns in a manner consistent with the Bureau's objectives under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau is also considering comments received in response to its May 2016 NPRM concerning the use of agreements between financial services providers and consumers providing for arbitration of any future disputes. The rulemaking follows on a groundbreaking study by the Bureau, as mandated by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau is concerned that these “mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements” are being used to prevent consumers from joining together to obtain relief for legal violations concerning consumer financial products and services, and that financial services providers who use such agreements therefore have far weaker incentives to obey the law than providers who do not. The Bureau continues to believe that the concerns articulated in the NPRM are substantial, and is carefully considering more than 120,000 comments received in response to the proposal with respect to how best to address those concerns in a manner consistent with the Bureau's objectives under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The Bureau is also engaged in rulemaking activities regarding the debt collection market, which continues to be the single largest source of complaints to the Federal Government of any industry. The Bureau is concerned that because consumers cannot choose their debt collectors or “vote with their feet,” they have less ability to protect themselves from harmful practices. In January 2017, the Bureau published the results of a survey of consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau has also received encouragement from industry to engage in rulemaking to resolve conflicts in case law and address issues of concern under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), such as the application of the FDCPA to modern communication technologies under the 40-year-old statute. The Bureau released an outline of proposals under consideration in July 2016, concerning practices by companies that are “debt collectors” under the FDCPA, in advance of convening a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy to consult with representatives of small businesses that might be affected by the rulemaking. Building on the feedback received through the SBREFA process and other sources, the Bureau has now decided to issue a proposed rule later in 2017 concerning FDCPA collectors' communications practices and consumer disclosures. The Bureau intends to follow up separately at a later time about concerns regarding information flows between creditors and FDCPA collectors and about potential rules to govern creditors that collect their own debts.
The Bureau is also engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in preparation for a potential rulemaking regarding overdraft programs on checking accounts. After several years of research, the Bureau believes that there are consumer protection concerns with regard to these programs. Consumers do not shop based on overdraft fee amounts and policies, and the market for overdraft services does not appear to be competitive. Under the current regulatory regime consumers can opt in to permit their financial institution to charge fees for ATM and point-of-sale debit overdrafts, but the complexity of the system may complicate consumer decision making. Despite widespread use of disclosure forms, the regime produces substantially different opt-in rates across different depository institutions and the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement work indicates that some institutions are aggressively steering consumers to opt in. The CFPB is engaged in consumer testing of revised opt-in forms and considering whether other regulatory changes may be warranted to enhance consumer decision making.
In addition, the Bureau is continuing rulemaking activities that will ensure meaningful supervision of non-bank financial services providers in order to create a more level playing field for depository and non-depository institutions. Under section 1024 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB is authorized to supervise “larger participants” of markets for various consumer financial products and services as defined by Bureau rule. The Bureau has defined the threshold for larger participants in several markets in past rulemakings, and is now working to develop a proposed rule that would define non-bank “larger participants” in the market for personal loans, including consumer installment loans and vehicle title loans. The Bureau is also considering whether rules to require registration of these or other non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
The Bureau's recent rulemaking concerning prepaid financial products also advanced fairness and consistency objectives by creating a uniform disclosure regime and providing basic protections similar to those enjoyed by users of debit cards and credit cards. The Bureau is in the process of working with industry to facilitate implementation of this rule, and recently proposed to extend the October 2017, effective date by six months in order to ensure a smoother transition for consumers and industry. The Bureau is also considering concerns raised by industry participants regarding certain substantive aspects of the prepaid rule that they assert are posing particular complexities for implementation or may have negative consequences for consumers that were not anticipated or fully explained by commenters in the course of the original rulemaking. The Bureau expects to issue a proposal to make some substantive changes to the rule in response to these concerns later this spring.
The Bureau's third group of activities concerns modernizing, streamlining, and clarifying consumer financial regulations and other activities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act. Since most of the Federal consumer financial laws that the Bureau administers were enacted in the 1960s and 1970s, there is often substantial demand for these activities from both industry and consumer advocates alike.
In addition to some of the projects mentioned above that advance these objectives, such as the HMDA processes modernization and debt collection rulemakings, the Bureau is pursuing a number of other research, policy, and rulemaking initiatives. For example, section 1022(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act specifically directs the Bureau to assess the effectiveness of significant rules five years after they are implemented, including seeking public comment. The Bureau recently published a request for comment on its plan to assess the effectiveness of the rule the Bureau adopted to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act regulating consumer remittance transfers of money to international recipients,
The Bureau is also considering rules to modernize the Bureau's database of credit card agreements to reduce burden on issuers that submit credit card agreements to the Bureau and make the database more useful for consumers and the general public. The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) requires credit card issuers to post their credit card agreements to their Internet site, and submit those agreements to the Bureau to be posted on an Internet site maintained by the Bureau. The Bureau believes an improved submission process and database would be more efficient for both industry and the Bureau and would allow consumers and the general public to access and analyze information more easily.
The Bureau has also launched several initiatives focusing on ways to facilitate technological and product innovation that could benefit consumers. These include the CFPB's Trial Disclosure Waiver Program, which is designed to implement the Bureau's authority under section 1032 of the Dodd-Frank Act to grant financial services providers temporary waivers to conduct controlled field experiments of consumer disclosures. In addition, the Bureau has published a policy to facilitate the issuance of “No Action Letters” indicating that Bureau staff has no present intention to recommend enforcement or supervisory action with respect to specific applicants who wish to provide innovative financial products or services that promise substantial consumer benefit but raise substantial uncertainty as to application of existing consumer financial laws. The Bureau has also recently published two Requests for Information (RFI) seeking to explore the potential benefits and risks to consumers of recent developments in the marketplace relating to use of consumer data. Specifically, one RFI focused on how consumers are exercising control over their own personal financial data, including the data maintained by their financial institutions, both through direct access of the data and consumers' sharing of such data with third parties such as companies that use aggregated data to provide consumers with financial advice and tracking services across multiple types of financial accounts.
The Bureau also expects later this year to begin the first in a series of reviews of existing regulations that it inherited from other agencies through the transfer of authorities under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Bureau had previously sought feedback on the inherited rules as a whole,
The Bureau has also recently formed an internal task force to coordinate and deepen the Agency's focus on concerns about regulatory burdens and on projects to identify and reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens consistent with the Bureau's objectives under section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Finally, the Bureau is continuing to conduct outreach and research to assess issues in various other markets for consumer financial products and services beyond those discussed above. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, including possible rulemaking actions, taking into account the critical need for and effectiveness of various policy tools. The Bureau will update its regulatory agenda in fall 2018, to reflect the results of this further prioritization and planning.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
In this document, the Commission publishes its semiannual regulatory flexibility agenda. In addition, this document includes an agenda of regulatory actions that the Commission expects to be under development or review by the agency during the next year. This document meets the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866. The Commission welcomes comments on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
Comments should be received in the Office of the Secretary on or before September 25, 2017.
Comments on the regulatory flexibility agenda should be captioned, “Regulatory Flexibility Agenda,” and submitted by email to
For further information on the agenda in general, contact Charu Krishnan, Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814–4408;
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 to 612) contains several provisions intended to reduce unnecessary and disproportionate regulatory requirements on small businesses, small governmental organizations, and other small entities. Section 602 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 602) requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory flexibility agenda containing a brief description of the subject area of any rule expected to be proposed or promulgated, which is likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number” of small entities. The agency must also provide a summary of the nature of the rule and a schedule for acting on each rule for which the agency has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The regulatory flexibility agenda also is required to contain the name and address of the agency official knowledgeable about the items listed. Furthermore, agencies are required to provide notice of their agendas to small entities and to solicit their comments by direct notification or by inclusion in publications likely to be obtained by such entities.
Additionally, Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to publish, twice each year, a regulatory agenda of regulations under development or review during the next year, and the executive order states that such an agenda may be combined with the agenda published in accordance with the RFA. The regulatory flexibility agenda lists the regulatory activities expected to be under development or review during the next 12 months. It includes all such activities, whether or not they may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This agenda also includes regulatory activities that appeared in the fall 2016 agenda and have been completed by the Commission prior to publication of this agenda. Although CPSC, as an independent regulatory agency, is not required to comply with Executive Orders, the Commission does follow Executive Order 12866 with respect to the publication of its regulatory agenda.
The agenda contains a brief description and summary of each regulatory activity, including the objectives and legal basis for each; an approximate schedule of target dates, subject to revision, for the development or completion of each activity; and the name and telephone number of a knowledgeable agency official concerning particular items on the agenda.
The Internet is the basic means through which the Unified Agenda is disseminated. The complete Unified Agenda will be available online at:
Because publication in the
(1) Rules that are in the agency's regulatory flexibility agenda, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act because they are likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; and
(2) Rules that the agency has identified for periodic review under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Printing of these entries is limited to fields that contain information required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act's agenda requirements. Additional information on these entries is available in the Unified Agenda published on the Internet.
The agenda reflects an assessment of the likelihood that the specified event will occur during the next year; the precise dates for each rulemaking are uncertain. New information, changes of circumstances, or changes in law may alter anticipated timing. In addition, no final determination by staff or the Commission regarding the need for, or the substance of, any rule or regulation should be inferred from this agenda.
Federal Communications Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
Twice a year, in spring and fall, the Commission publishes in the
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Maura McGowan, Telecommunications Policy Specialist, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–0990.
The Commission encourages public participation in its rulemaking process. To help keep the public informed of significant rulemaking proceedings, the Commission has prepared a list of important proceedings now in progress. The General Services Administration publishes the Unified Agenda in the
The following terms may be helpful in understanding the status of the proceedings included in this report:
On July 10, 2015, the commission released a Declaratory Ruling and Order resolving 21 separate requests for clarification or other action regarding the TCPA. It clarified, among other things, that: Nothing in the Communications Act of the Commission's rules prohibits carriers or other service providers from implementing consumer-initiated call-blocking technologies; equipment meets the TCPA's definition of “autodialer” if it has the “capacity” to store or produce random sequential numbers, and to dial them, even if it is not presently used for that purpose; an “app” provider that plays a minimal role in making a call, such as just proving the app itself, is not the maker of the call for TCPA purposes; consumers who have previously consented to robocalls may revoke that consent at any time and through any reasonable means; the TCPA requires the consent of the party called—the subscriber to a phone number or the customary user of the number—not the intended recipient of the call; and callers who make calls without knowledge or reassignment of a wireless phone number and with a reasonable basis to believe that they have valid consent to make the call to the wireless number should be able to initiate one call after reassignment as an additional opportunity to gain actual or constructive knowledge of the reassignment and cease future calls to the new subscriber. The Commission also exempted certain financial and healthcare-related calls, when free to the consumer, from the TCPA's consumer-consent requirement.
Following a May 6, 2016, NPRM, the Commission released a Report and Order on August 11, 2016, adopting rules governing federal debt collection calls as required by Budget Act amendments to the TCPA. Among other things, the rules make clear that certain debt servicing calls are permitted under the exception; cap the number of permitted calls to wireless numbers at no more than three within a thirty-day period; ensure that consumers have the right to stop such calls at any time; specify who may make covered calls; and determine who may be called.
In the Order, pursuant to the authority delegated by the Commission, FCC amends sections 15.31(a)(2) and 15.38(b)(2) of the Commission's rules to reference the 2013 version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C63.17 standard, Methods of Measurement of the Electromagnetic and Operational Compatibility of Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS) Devices, ANSI C63.17–2013. This version of the standard supersedes ANSI C63.17–2006, which contains measurement procedures for verifying the compliance of UPCS
In the Report and Order, the Commission amended its rules to make additional spectrum available for new investment in mobile broadband networks while also ensuring that the United States maintains robust mobile satellite service capabilities. First, the Commission adds co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 2 GHz band, consistent with the International Table of Allocations, allowing more flexible use of the band, including for terrestrial broadband services, in the future. Second, to create greater predictability and regulatory parity with the bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service, the Commission extends its existing secondary market spectrum manager spectrum leasing policies, procedures, and rules that currently apply to wireless terrestrial services to terrestrial services provided using the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of an MSS system. Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding concerning Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525–1559 MHz and 1626.5–1660.5 MHz, 1610–1626.5 MHz
Navtech Radar, Ltd. and Honeywell International, Inc., filed petitions for reconsideration in response to the
The Commission denied Honeywell's petition. Section 1.429(b) of the Commission's rules provides three ways in which a petition for reconsideration can be granted, and none of these have been met. Honeywell has not shown that its petition relies on facts regarding fixed radar use which had not previously been presented to the Commission, nor does it show that its petition relies on facts that relate to events that changed since Honeywell had the last opportunity to present its facts regarding fixed radar use.
The Commission stated in the Vehicular Radar R&O, “that no parties have come forward to support fixed radar applications beyond airport locations in this band,” and it decided not to adopt provisions for unlicensed fixed radar use other than those for FOD detection applications at airport locations. Because Navtech first participated in the proceeding when it filed its petition well after the decision was published, its petition fails to meet the timeliness standard of section 1.429(d).
In connection with the Commission's decision to deny the petitions for reconsideration discussed above, the Commission terminates ET Docket Nos. 10–28 and 11–90 (pertaining to vehicular radar).
This Report and Order updates the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) equipment authorization program to build on the success realized by its use of Commission-recognized Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs). The rules the Commission is adopting will facilitate the continued rapid introduction of new and innovative products to the market while ensuring that these products do not cause harmful interference to each other or to other communications devices and services.
In the Report and Order, the Commission takes several steps to accommodate the long-term needs of wireless microphone users. Wireless microphones play an important role in enabling broadcasters and other video programming networks to serve
In the Report and Order (R&O), the Commission revised and streamlined its rules to modernize the Experimental Radio Service (ERS). The rules adopted in the R&O updated the ERS to a more flexible framework to keep pace with the speed of modern technological change while continuing to provide an environment where creativity can thrive. To accomplish this transition, the Commission created three new types of ERS licenses—the program license, the medical testing license, and the compliance testing license—to benefit the development of new technologies, expedite their introduction to the marketplace, and unleash the full power of innovators to keep the United States at the forefront of the communications industry. The Commission's actions also modified the market trial rules to eliminate confusion and more clearly articulate its policies with respect to marketing products prior to equipment certification. The Commission believes that these actions will remove regulatory barriers to experimentation, thereby permitting institutions to move from concept to experimentation to finished product more rapidly and to more quickly implement creative problem-solving methodologies.
The Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the Commission proposes to modify the rules for program experimental licenses to permit experimentation for radio frequency (RF)-based medical devices, if the device being tested is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18, Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment; part 95, Personal Radio Services subpart H Wireless Medical Telemetry Service; or part 95, subpart I Medical Device Radiocommunication Service. This proposal is designed to establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices as to permissible frequencies of operation.
This Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to three petitions for reconsideration seeking to modify certain rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. In response, the Commission modifies its rules, consistent with past practice, to permit conventional Experimental Radio Service (ERS) licensees and compliance testing licensees to use bands exclusively allocated to the passive services in some circumstances; clarifies that some cost recovery is permitted for the testing and operation of experimental medical devices that take place under its market trial rules; and adds a definition of emergency notification providers: to its rules to clarify that all participants in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) are such providers. However, the Commission declines to expand the eligibility for medical testing licenses.
In the Report and Order the Commission implemented allocation changes from the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2007) (WRC–07) and updated related service rules. The Commission took this action in order to conform its rules, to the extent practical, to the decisions that the international community made at WRC–07. This action will promote the advancement of new and expanded services and provide significant benefits to the American people. In addition, the Commission revised the International Table of Frequency Allocations within its rules to generally reflect the allocation changes made at the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC–12).
In a Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a standardized application form for satellite licenses, and adopted a mandatory electronic filing requirement for certain satellite applications. In a Fourth Report and Order, the Commission extended mandatory electronic filing to all satellite and earth station applications, and implemented two measures that allow space station operators to make certain changes to their systems without prior regulatory approval. In a Fifth Report and Order and First Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied certain petitions for reconsideration of the First Report and Order and revised the bond amounts from $5 million to $3 million for each GSO satellite and from $7.5 million to $5 million for each NGSO satellite system. In a Second Order on Reconsideration, the Commission eliminated a presumption that at least three satellite licensees were necessary in a processing round to make reasonably efficient use of the available spectrum and amended its rules governing transfers of control of non-U.S.-licensed space stations.
The Report and Order adopts definitions and permissible use provisions for digital TV translator and LPTV stations. The Second Report and Order takes steps to resolve the remaining issues in order to complete the low-power television digital transition. The third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a number of issues related to the potential impact of the incentive auction and the repacking process.
Pursuant to a remand from the Third Circuit, the measures adopted in the 2009 Diversity Order were put forth for comment in the NPRM for the 2010 review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership rules. The Commission sought additional comment in 2014. The Commission addressed the remand in the 2016 Second Report and Order.
In May 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, FNPRM, and Order on Reconsideration (see dockets 11–82 & 15–80). The Order on Reconsideration addressed outage reporting for events at airports, and the FNPRM sought comment on database sharing.
The Spectrum Act requires that the incentive auction consist of a reverse auction “to determine the amount of compensation that each broadcast television licensee would accept in return for voluntarily relinquishing some or all of its spectrum usage rights and a forward auction” that would allow mobile broadband providers to bid for licenses in the reallocated spectrum. Broadcast television licensees who elected to voluntarily participate in the auction had three basic options: Voluntarily go off the air; share spectrum; or move channels in exchange for receiving part of the proceeds from auctioning that spectrum to wireless providers.
In June 2014 the Commission adopted a Report and Order that laid out the general framework for the incentive auction. The incentive auction started on March 29, 2016, with the submission of initial commitments by eligible broadcast licensees that had submitted timely and complete applications, and bidding ended on March 30, 2017. The announcement of the closing of the incentive auction will start the 39-month transition period during which broadcasters will transition their stations to their post-auction channel assignments in the reorganized television bands.
Today's action is a first step to implement the congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) to grant new initial licenses for the 1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding,—unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licenses in the 1930–1985 MHz (PCS downlink) band. The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We, therefore, propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, aiming to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate use for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS.
The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to create a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service in the 3550 to 3650 MHz band to be governed by a new part 96 of the Commission's rules. Access to and use of the 3550 to 3650 MHz band would be managed by a spectrum access system, incorporating a geo-location enabled dynamic database.
The Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the Commission established a new Citizens Broadband Radio Service for shared wireless broadband use of the 3550 to 3700 MHz band. The Citizens Broadband Radio Service is governed by a three-tiered spectrum authorization framework to accommodate a variety of commercial uses on a shared basis with incumbent federal and non-federal users of the band. Access and operations will be managed by a dynamic spectrum access system. The three tiers are: Incumbent Access, Priority Access, and General Authorized Access. Rules governing the Citizens Broadband Radio Service are found in part 96 of the Commission's rules.
On March 20, 2017, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to extend the separations freeze for an additional 18 months through December 2018 and to consider with the Separations Federal-State Joint Board comprehensive reform of the jurisdictional separations procedures in the Commission's rules.
On February 23, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that revised the part 32 USOA to substantially reduce accounting burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers. First, the Order streamlines the USOA for all carriers. In addition, the USOA will be aligned more closely with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Second, the Order allows price cap carriers to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes as long as they comply with targeted accounting rules, which are designed to mitigate any impact on pole attachment rates. Alternatively, price cap carriers can elect to use GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with pole attachment rates and continue to use the part 32 accounts for pole attachment rates for up to 12 years. Third, the Order addresses several miscellaneous issues, including referral to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to part 32.
The rules became effective on June 12, 2015, with the exception of the additional reporting obligations, which became effective on January 17, 2017.
In March 2017, the Commission adopted an Order granting a five-year waiver to broadband Internet access service providers with 250,000 or fewer broadband connections from the additional reporting obligations.
In its 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to allow interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and the Pooling Administrator, subject to certain requirements. The Commission also sought comment on a forward-looking approach to numbers for other types of providers and uses, including telematics and public safety, and the benefits and number exhaust risks of granting providers other than interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers direct access.
In its 2015 Report and Order, the Commission established an authorization process to enable interconnected VoIP providers that choose to obtain access to North American Numbering Plan telephone numbers directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator and/or the Pooling Administrator (Numbering Administrators), rather than through intermediaries. The Order also set forth several conditions designed to minimize number exhaust and preserve the integrity of the numbering system. Specifically, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. The requirements included any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Commission also required interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. In addition, as conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, the Commission required interconnected VoIP providers to: (1) Provide the relevant state commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant state commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area. Finally, the Order also modified Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
In the Local Number Portability Porting Interval and Validation Requirements First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released on May 13, 2009, the Commission reduced the porting interval for simple wireline and simple intermodal port requests, requiring all entities subject to its local number portability (LNP) rules to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and simple intermodal port requests within one business day. In a related Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the Commission sought comment on what further steps, if any, the Commission should take to improve the process of changing providers.
In the LNP Standard Fields Order, released on May 20, 2010, the Commission adopted standardized data fields for simple wireline and intermodal ports. The Order also adopts the NANC's recommendations for porting process provisioning flows and for counting a business day in the context of number porting.
Agency Contact: Melissa Kirkel, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street
The 2015 Order on Reconsideration is currently under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in
On February 13, 2015, the Wireline Competition Bureau provided additional guidance regarding how providers must categorize information. The Commission also adopted an Order on Reconsideration addressing petitions for reconsideration. Reports have been due quarterly beginning with the second quarter of 2015.
The Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: (i) Adopted rules updating the process by which incumbent LECs notify interconnecting entities of planned copper retirements; (ii) clarified that a carrier must obtain Commission approval before discontinuing, reducing, or impairing a service used as a wholesale input, but only when the carrier's actions will discontinue, reduce, or impair service to end users, including a carrier-customer's retail end users; (iii) adopted an interim rule requiring that to receive authority to discontinue, reduce, or impair a legacy TDM-based service special access service or commercial wholesale platform service that is used as a wholesale input by competitive providers, an incumbent LEC must as a condition to obtaining discontinuance authority commit to providing competitive carriers wholesale access on reasonably comparable rates, terms, and conditions; (iv) proposed specific criteria for the Commission to consider in determining whether to authorize carriers to discontinue a legacy retail service in favor of a retail service based on a newer technology; (v) sought comment on updating the rules governing the discontinuance process, including regarding the timing of notice to consumers, the method for providing that notice, and providing notice to Tribal governments; (vi) sought comment on extending the end point of the interim rule adopted in the Report and Order as it applies to the commercial wholesale platform service; and (vii) sought comment on whether to adopt objective criteria to measure an ILEC's good faith in responding to competitive LEC requests for additional information in connection with a copper retirement notice and whether a planned copper retirement should be postponed when an ILEC has failed to fulfill the new good faith communication requirement adopted in the Report and Order.
The Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration: (i) Adopted rules updating the process by which carriers seek Commission authorization for the discontinuance of legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (ii) set forth consumer education requirements for carriers seeking to discontinue legacy services in favor of services based on newer technologies; (iii) revised rules to authorize carriers to provide notice to customers of discontinuance applications by email; (iv) revised rules to require carriers to provide notice of discontinuance applications to Tribal entities; (v) revised rules to provide new titles for copper retirement notices and certifications; (vi) revised rules to provide that if a competitive LEC files a section 214(a) discontinuance application based on an incumbent LEC's copper retirement notice without an accompanying discontinuance of TDM-based service, the competitive LEC's application will be automatically granted on the effective date of the copper retirement as long as (1) the competitive LEC submits its discontinuance application to the Commission at least 40 days before the incumbent LEC's copper retirement effective date, and (2) the competitive LEC's discontinuance application contains a certification that the basis for the application is the incumbent LEC's planned copper retirement.
The Order requires interconnected VoIP providers obtaining numbers to comply with the same requirements applicable to carriers seeking to obtain numbers. These requirements include any state requirements pursuant to numbering authority delegated to the states by the Commission, as well as industry guidelines and practices, among others. The Order also requires interconnected VoIP providers to comply with facilities readiness requirements adapted to this context, and with numbering utilization and optimization requirements. As conditions to requesting and obtaining numbers directly from the Numbering Administrators, interconnected VoIP providers are also required to: (1) Provide the relevant state commissions with regulatory and numbering contacts when requesting numbers in those states, (2) request numbers from the Numbering Administrators under their own unique OCN, (3) file any requests for numbers with the relevant state commissions at least 30 days prior to requesting numbers from the Numbering Administrators, and (4) provide customers with the opportunity to access all abbreviated dialing codes (N11 numbers) in use in a geographic area.
Finally, the Order also modifies Commission's rules in order to permit VoIP Positioning Center (VPC) providers to obtain pseudo-Automatic Number Identification (p–ANI) codes directly from the Numbering Administrators for purposes of providing E911 services.
Connect America Fund (formally known as High-Cost Support) for rural areas
Lifeline (for low-income consumers), including initiatives to expand phone service for Native Americans
Schools and Libraries (E-rate)
Rural Health Care
The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment on their interstate and international end-user revenues. The Universal Service Administrative Company, or USAC, administers the four programs and collects monies for the Universal Service Fund under the direction of the FCC.
On December 20, 2016, the Commission adopted measures to address the significant demand for Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A–CAM) support.
On March 2, 2017, the Commission implements Connect America Phase II auction in which service providers will compete to receive support to offer voice and broadband service in unserved high cost areas.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is hereby publishing items for the Spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The agenda contains information about FDIC's current and projected rulemakings, existing regulations under review, and completed rulemakings.
Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.
Twice each year, the FDIC publishes an agenda of regulations to inform the public of its regulatory actions and to enhance public participation in the rulemaking process. Publication of the agenda is in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
On October 26, 2016, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation published in the
The OCC, Board, FDIC, and NCUA (collectively, the Agencies) are seeking comment on a proposed rule to amend the agencies' regulations regarding appraisals of real estate, adopted pursuant to title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (Title XI). Title XI requires the agencies to adopt regulations regarding the performance of appraisals used in connection with federally related transactions (Title XI appraisals) within the jurisdiction of each agency. As discussed below, the agencies received comments requesting that the agencies require title XI appraisals for fewer transactions as part of a regulatory review process mandated by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed amendments would increase the threshold level at or below which title XI appraisals are not required for commercial real estate loans to $400,000, as defined in this regulation. For commercial real estate loans below the threshold, the amended rule would require institutions to obtain an evaluation of the real property collateral consistent with safe and sound banking practices, if the institution does not obtain a title XI appraisal. The agencies also propose to amend their appraisal regulations to require that appraisals for federally related transactions are subject to appropriate review for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as required by an amendment to title XI included in section 1473(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
The OCC, Board, and the FDIC are seeking comment on a joint proposed rule to revise their respective regulations that implement the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). The proposed rule would adjust asset thresholds for the DIMIA major asset prohibition, which prohibits management officials for depository institutions with assets in excess of specified levels from engaging in management interlocks (an individual may not serve as an official of two unaffiliated depository institutions with assets in excess of the specified levels). The levels are currently set at $2.5 billion and $1.5 billion. Based on inflation or market changes, current inflation adjusted thresholds would be $3.6 billion and $2.16 billion.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation propose (1) To amend their regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act to update the existing definitions of home mortgage loan and consumer loan, related cross references, and the public file content requirements to reflect recent revisions made by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and (2) to remove obsolete references to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (the Agencies) seek comment on a joint proposed rule to revise the generally applicable capital rules with the goal of meaningfully reducing regulatory burden on community banking organizations while at the same time maintaining safety and soundness and the quality and quantity of regulatory capital in the banking system. The proposal includes (1) Replacing the framework's complex treatment of high volatility commercial real estate (HVCRE) exposures with a more straightforward treatment for most acquisition, development, or construction (ADC) loans; (2) simplifying the current regulatory capital treatment for mortgage servicing assets (MSAs), timing difference deferred tax assets (DTAs), and holdings of regulatory capital instruments issued by financial institutions; and (3) simplifying the current limitations on minority interests in regulatory capital.
The OCC, Board, FDIC, CFTC, and SEC are requesting comment on a proposed rule that would modify the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for covered trading activities under appendix A of the final rule implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which was added by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Agencies adopted a final rule implementing section 13 that became effective on April 1, 2014. In appendix A of the final rule, the Agencies said they would review the data collected and revise the collection requirement as appropriate
The OCC, Board, and FDIC (the appropriate Federal banking agencies) are developing a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which will be published in the
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation invited comment on a proposed rule that would implement a stable funding requirement, the net stable funding ratio (NSFR), for large and internationally active banking organizations. The proposed NSFR requirement is designed to reduce the likelihood that disruptions to a banking organization's regular sources of funding will compromise its liquidity position, as well as to promote improvements in the measurement and management of liquidity risk. The proposed rule would also amend certain definitions in the liquidity coverage ratio rule that are also applicable to the NSFR. The proposed NSFR requirement would apply beginning on January 1, 2018, to bank holding companies, certain savings and loan holding companies, and depository institutions that, in each case, have $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure, and to their consolidated subsidiaries that are depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. In addition, the Board proposed a modified NSFR requirement for bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies that, in each case, have $50 billion or more, but less than $250 billion, in total consolidated assets and less than $10 billion in total on-balance sheet foreign exposure. Neither the proposed NSFR requirement nor the proposed modified NSFR requirement would apply to banking organizations with consolidated assets of less than $50 billion and total on-balance sheet foreign exposure of less than $10 billion. A bank holding company or savings and loan holding company subject to the proposed NSFR requirement or modified NSFR requirement would be required to publicly disclose the company's NSFR and the components of its NSFR each calendar quarter.
The FDIC is proposing to add a new part 382 to its rules to improve the resolvability of systemically important U.S. banking organizations and systemically important foreign banking organizations and enhance the resilience and the safety and soundness of certain state savings associations and state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System (state non-member banks or SNMBs) for which the FDIC is the primary federal regulator (together, FSIs or FDIC-supervised institutions). Under this proposed rule, covered FSIs would be required to ensure that covered qualified financial contracts (QFCs) to which they are a party provide that any default rights and restrictions on the transfer of the QFCs are limited to the same extent as they would be under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. In addition, covered FSIs would generally be prohibited from being party to QFCs that would allow a QFC counterparty to exercise default rights against the covered FSI based on the entry into a resolution proceeding under the Dodd-Frank Act, FDI Act, or any other resolution proceeding of an affiliate of the covered FSI.
The proposal would also amend the definition of qualifying master netting agreement in the FDIC's capital and liquidity rules, and certain related terms in the FDIC's capital rules. These proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the regulatory capital and liquidity treatment of QFCs to which a covered FSI is party would not be affected by the proposed restrictions on such QFCs. The requirements of this proposed rule are substantively identical to those contained in notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 3, 2016, regarding covered entities, and the notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on August 19, 2016, regarding covered banks.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation proposed to rescind and remove a part from the Code of Federal Regulations entitled Security Procedures and to amend FDIC regulations to make the removed Office of Thrift Supervision regulations applicable to State savings associations.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposed to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart I, entitled Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance. This subpart was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The requirements for State savings associations in part 390, subpart I are substantively similar to the requirements in the FDIC's 12 CFR part 343, which is also entitled Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance and is applicable for all insured depository institutions (IDIs) for which the FDIC has been designated the appropriate Federal banking agency.
The FDIC proposed to rescind in its entirety part 390, subpart I and to modify the scope of part 343 to include State savings associations and their subsidiaries to conform to and reflect the scope of the FDIC's current supervisory responsibilities as the appropriate Federal banking agency. The FDIC also proposed to define FDIC-supervised insured depository institution or institution and State savings association. Finally, the FDIC proposed to transfer an anticoercion and antitying provision from part 390, subpart I that is applicable to State savings associations. Upon removal of part 390, subpart I, the Consumer Protection in Sales of Insurance, regulations applicable for all IDIs for which the FDIC has been designated the appropriate Federal banking agency will be found at 12 CFR part 343.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Farm Credit Administration, and the National Credit Union Administration have issued a new proposal to amend their regulations regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, the proposed rule would require regulated lending institutions to accept policies that meet the statutory definition of private flood insurance in the Biggert-Waters Act and permit regulated lending institutions to accept flood insurance provided by private insurers that does not meet the statutory definition of private flood insurance on a discretionary basis, subject to certain restrictions.
This final rule rescinds the capital regulations in part 325 and subparts Y and Z of part 390 of the FDIC's codified rules (the superseded capital rules) that were no longer effective following the January 1, 2015, implementation of the capital rules consistent with the Basel III initiatives. The final rule also makes conforming changes to sections in the FDIC's codified rules that refer to the superseded capital rules. The FDIC has concluded that good cause exists to publish this rule as final without a period of notice and comment and with an effective date as of the date of its publication in the
This rule amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to incorporate certain changes made to the FOIA by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. In addition, this rule amends certain provisions to reflect changes brought about by prior amendments to the FOIA that had been incorporated into Agency practice and corrects inaccurate contact information and adjusts numbering and lettering of current provisions because of additions to the regulations.
The FDIC proposes to amend its regulations regarding Recordkeeping Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts (Part 371) which requires insured depository institutions (IDIs) in a troubled condition to keep records relating to qualified financial contracts (QFCs) to which they are party. The proposed rule would (i) Simplify QFC recordkeeping for large banks by aligning requirements with the rule of the US Treasury governing QFC recordkeeping of certain non-bank affiliates; (ii) require such large banks to keep QFC records of certain of their subsidiaries; (iii) for all other IDIs subject to part 371, add and delete a limited number of data requirements and make certain formatting changes with respect to the QFC recordkeeping requirements; (iv) provide additional time for certain IDIs in a troubled condition to comply with part 371; and (v) include certain other changes, including changes relating to certain extension procedures and clarifications relating to the timing for creation of daily records.
The OCC, Board, FDIC, FHFA, NCUA, and SEC (the Agencies) sought comment on a joint proposed rule to revise the proposed rule the Agencies published in the
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission (individually, an Agency, and collectively, the Agencies) will be adopting an interim final rule that would permit banking entities to retain investments in certain pooled investment vehicles that invested their offering proceeds primarily in trust preferred or subordinated debt securities issued by community banking organizations of the type grandfathered under section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The interim final rule is a companion rule to the final rules adopted by the Agencies to implement section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which was added by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
In this rulemaking, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will be proposing to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390, subpart P, entitled Lending and Investment (part 390, subpart P). This subpart was included in the regulations that were transferred to the FDIC from the Office of Thrift Supervision on July 21, 2011, in connection with the implementation of applicable provisions of title III of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Upon removal of part 390, subpart P, all insured depository institutions for which the FDIC is the appropriate Federal banking agency will follow the safety and soundness standards contained in 12 CFR part 364 of the FDIC's Rules and Regulations and the real-estate lending standards found in 12 CFR part 365 of the FDIC's Rules.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will be proposing to rescind and remove from the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR part 390
The FDIC sought public comment on a proposed rule to amend its international banking regulations (Part 347) consistent with section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) and the FDIC's authority under section 5(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Section 939A directs each Federal agency to review and modify regulations that reference credit ratings. The rule would amend the provisions of subparts A and B of part 347 that reference credit ratings. Subpart A, which sets forth the FDIC's requirements for insured State nonmember banks that operate foreign branches, would be amended to replace references to credit ratings in the definition of “investment grade” with a standard of creditworthiness that has been adopted in other Federal regulations that conform with section 939A. Subpart B would be amended to revise the FDIC's asset pledge requirement for insured U.S. branches of foreign banks. The eligibility criteria for the types of assets that foreign banks may pledge would be amended by replacing the references to credit ratings with the revised definition of investment grade. The rule would apply this investment grade standard to each type of pledgeable asset, establish a liquidity requirement for such assets, and subject them to a fair value discount. The proposed rule would also introduce cash as a new asset type that foreign banks may pledge under subpart B and create a separate asset category expressly for debt securities issued by government sponsored enterprises.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, in accordance with section 205(h) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, jointly proposed a rule to implement provisions applicable to the orderly liquidation of covered brokers and dealers under title II of the Dodd-Frank Act.
The FDIC is adopting a final rule that amends the definition of qualifying master netting agreement under the regulatory capital rules and the liquidity coverage ratio rule. In this final rule, the FDIC also is amending the definitions of collateral agreement, eligible margin loan, and repo-style transaction under the regulatory capital rules. These amendments are designed to ensure that the regulatory capital and liquidity treatment of certain financial contracts generally would not be affected by implementation of special resolution regimes in non-U.S. jurisdictions that are substantially similar to the U.S. resolution framework or by changes to the International Swaps and Derivative Association Master Agreement that provide for contractual submission to such regimes. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued in December 2014, a joint interim final rule that is substantially identical to this final rule.
The FDIC is adopting a final rule to facilitate prompt payment of FDIC-insured deposits when large insured depository institutions fail. The final rule requires each insured depository institution that has two million or more deposit accounts to (1) Configure its information technology system to be capable of calculating the insured and uninsured amount in each deposit account by ownership right and capacity, which would be used by the FDIC to make deposit insurance determinations in the event of the institution's failure, and (2) maintain complete and accurate information needed by the FDIC to determine deposit insurance coverage with respect to each deposit account, except as otherwise provided.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, the Agencies) are jointly adopting as final and without change the agencies' interim final rules published in the
To improve corporate governance and risk management at insured State banks, State savings associations, and insured State branches of foreign banks that have average total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more, the FDIC is proposing to issue new corporate governance and risk management guidelines under its safety and soundness authority provided by section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The proposed Guidelines
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is adjusting the maximum amount of each civil money penalty within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The FDIC is also amending its rules of practice and procedure under 12 CFR part 308 to cross-reference the annual adjustments that will be published in the
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (collectively, the Agencies) are inviting comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the Agencies' rules on disclosure and reporting of Community Reinvestment Act-related agreements to remove the quarterly reporting requirement and an obsolete provision.
Ryan Billingsley, Chief, Capital Policy Section, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Benedetto Bosco, Chief, Capital Policy Section, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20459,
Michael Phillips, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Rachel J. Ackmann, Senior Attorney, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429,
Catherine S. Wood, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20459,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Board is issuing this agenda under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Board's Statement of Policy Regarding Expanded Rulemaking Procedures. The Board anticipates having under consideration regulatory matters as indicated below during the period June 1, 2017, through October 31, 2017. The next agenda will be published in fall 2017.
Comments about the form or content of the agenda may be submitted any time during the next 6 months.
Comments should be addressed to Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
A staff contact for each item is indicated with the regulatory description below.
The Board is publishing its spring 2017 agenda as part of the Spring 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. The agenda also identifies rules the Board has selected for review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and public comment is invited on those entries. The complete Unified Agenda will be available to the public at the following Web site:
The Board's agenda is divided into four sections. The first, Pre-rule Stage, reports on matters the Board is considering for future rulemaking. The second section, Proposed Rule Stage, reports on matters the Board may consider for public comment during the next 6 months. The third section, Final Rule Stage, reports on matters that have been proposed and are under Board consideration. And a fourth section, Completed Actions, reports on regulatory matters the Board has completed or is not expected to consider further.
A dot (•) preceding an entry indicates a new matter that was not a part of the Board's previous agenda and which the Board has not completed.
Claudia Von Pervieux, Counsel, Federal Reserve System, Legal Division, Washington, DC 20551,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
We are publishing our semiannual regulatory agenda (the Agenda) in accordance with Public Law 96–354, “The Regulatory Flexibility Act,” and Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which we have recently completed action or have proposed or are considering action. We have completed 10 rulemaking activities since publication of our last Agenda on December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94894). This issuance of our Agenda contains 34 active and 24 long-term rulemaking activities: 3 are Economically Significant; 8 represent Other Significant agency priorities; 45 are Substantive, Nonsignificant rulemaking activities; and 2 are Administrative rulemaking activities. In addition, 3 rulemaking activities impact small entities. We are requesting comment on the rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda.
Submit comments on rulemaking activities as identified in this Agenda by September 25, 2017.
Submit comments on any rulemaking activity in the Agenda by the date and methods specified in any
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–3280; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–0078 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this document. You may obtain publically-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
○ For completed rulemaking activities go to
○ For active rulemaking activities go to
○ For long-term rulemaking activities go to
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC–2017–0078 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 Agenda is a compilation of all rulemaking activities on which an agency has recently completed action or has proposed or is considering action. The Agenda reports rulemaking activities in three major categories: Completed, active, and long-term. Completed rulemaking activities are those that were completed since publication of an agency's last Agenda; active rulemaking activities are those that an agency currently plans to have an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, or a Final Rule issued within the next 12 months; and long-term rulemaking activities are rulemaking activities under development but for which an agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months after publication of the current edition of the Unified Agenda.
We assign a “Regulation Identifier Number” (RIN) to a rulemaking activity when our Commission initiates a rulemaking and approves a rulemaking plan, or when the NRC staff begins work on a Commission delegated rulemaking that does not require a rulemaking plan. The Office of Management and Budget uses this number to track all relevant documents throughout the entire “lifecycle” of a particular rulemaking activity. We report all rulemaking activities in the Agenda that have been assigned a RIN and meet the definition for a completed, an active, or a long-term rulemaking activity.
The information contained in this Agenda is updated to reflect any action that has occurred on a rulemaking activity since publication of our last Agenda on December 23, 2016 (81 FR 94894). Specifically, the information in this Agenda has been updated through March 31, 2017. The NRC provides additional information on planned
The date for the next scheduled action under the heading “Timetable” is the date the next regulatory action for the rulemaking activity is scheduled to be published in the
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to conduct a review within 10 years of promulgation of those regulations that have or will have a
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is publishing the Chairman's agenda of rulemaking actions pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164) (Sep. 19, 1980). The items listed in the Regulatory Flexibility Agenda for spring 2017 reflect only the priorities of the Acting Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and do not necessarily reflect the view and priorities of any individual Commissioner.
Information in the agenda was accurate on March 29, 2017, the date on which the Commission's staff completed compilation of the data. To the extent possible, rulemaking actions by the Commission since that date have been reflected in the agenda. The Commission invites questions and public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
The Commission is now printing in the
The Commission's complete RFA agenda will be available online at
Comments should be received on or before September 25, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
• Send paper comments to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090.
Mykaila DeLesDernier, Office of the General Counsel, 202–551–5129.
The RFA requires each Federal agency, twice each year, to publish in the
The following abbreviations for the acts administered by the Commission are used in the agenda:
The Commission invites public comment on the agenda and on the individual agenda entries.
By the Commission.
Surface Transportation Board.
Semiannual regulatory agenda.
The Surface Transportation Board (the Board), in accordance with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), is publishing a semiannual agenda of: (1) Current and projected rulemakings; and (2) existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking. Listed below are the regulatory actions to be developed or reviewed during the next 12 months. Following each rule identified is a brief description of the rule, including its purpose and legal basis.
A contact person is identified for each of the rules listed below.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
(1) A brief description of the subject area of any rule that the agency expects to propose or promulgate, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(2) A summary of the nature of any such rule under consideration for each subject area listed in the agenda pursuant to paragraph (1), the objectives and legal basis for the issuance of the rule, and an approximate schedule for completing action on any rule for which the agency has issued a general notice of proposed rulemaking; and
(3) The name and telephone number of an agency official knowledgeable about the items listed in paragraph (1).
Accordingly, a list of proceedings appears below containing information about subject areas in which the Board is currently conducting rulemaking proceedings or may institute such proceedings in the near future. It also contains information about existing regulations being reviewed to determine whether to propose modifications through rulemaking.
The agenda represents the Board's best estimate of rules that will be considered over the next 12 months. However, section 602(d) of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 602(d), provides: “Nothing in [section 602] precludes an agency from considering or acting on any matter not included in a regulatory flexibility agenda or requires an agency to consider or act on any matter listed in such agenda.”
The Board is publishing its spring 2017 regulatory flexibility agenda as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Unified Agenda is coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), pursuant to Executive Order 12866 and 13563. The Board is participating voluntarily in the program to assist OMB.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott and Miller.
(a) safeguard our communities and maintain a healthy environment;
(b) ensure that Federal authorities make informed decisions concerning the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects;
(c) develop infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner;
(d) provide transparency and accountability to the public regarding environmental review and authorization decisions;
(e) be good stewards of public funds, including those used to develop infrastructure projects, and avoid duplicative and wasteful processes;
(f) conduct environmental reviews and authorization processes in a coordinated, consistent, predictable, and timely manner in order to give public and private investors the confidence necessary to make funding decisions for new infrastructure projects;
(g) speak with a coordinated voice when conducting environmental reviews and making authorization decisions; and
(h) make timely decisions with the goal of completing all Federal environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects within 2 years.
(a) “Authorization” means any license, permit, approval, finding, determination, or other administrative decision issued by a Federal department or agency (agency) that is required or authorized under Federal law in
(b) “CAP Goals” means Federal Government Priority Goals established by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010, Public Law 111–352, 124 Stat. 3866, and commonly referred to as Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals.
(c) “Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council” or “FPISC” means the entity established under 42 U.S.C. 4370m–1.
(d) “Infrastructure project” means a project to develop the public and private physical assets that are designed to provide or support services to the general public in the following sectors: surface transportation, including roadways, bridges, railroads, and transit; aviation; ports, including navigational channels; water resources projects; energy production and generation, including from fossil, renewable, nuclear, and hydro sources; electricity transmission; broadband Internet; pipelines; stormwater and sewer infrastructure; drinking water infrastructure; and other sectors as may be determined by the FPISC.
(e) “Major infrastructure project” means an infrastructure project for which multiple authorizations by Federal agencies will be required to proceed with construction, the lead Federal agency has determined that it will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
(f) “Permitting timetable” means an environmental review and authorization schedule, or other equivalent schedule, for a project or group of projects that identifies milestones—including intermediate and final completion dates for action by each agency on any Federal environmental review or authorization required for a project or group of projects—that is prepared by the lead Federal agency in consultation with all cooperating and participating agencies.
(a)
(A) Federal environmental reviews and authorization processes for infrastructure projects are consistent, coordinated, and predictable; and
(B) the time for the Federal Government's processing of environmental reviews and authorization decisions for new major infrastructure projects should be reduced to not more than an average of approximately 2 years, measured from the date of the publication of a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement or other benchmark deemed appropriate by the Director of OMB.
(b)
(A) whether major infrastructure projects are processed using the “One Federal Decision” mechanism, as described in subsection 5(b) of this order;
(B) whether major infrastructure projects have a permitting timetable;
(C) whether major infrastructure projects follow an effective process that automatically elevates instances in which permitting timetable milestones are missed or extended, or are anticipated to be missed or extended, to appropriate senior agency officials;
(D) whether agencies are meeting the established milestones in the permitting timetable;
(E) the time it takes to complete the processing of environmental reviews and authorizations for each major infrastructure project; and
(F) the costs of the environmental reviews and authorizations for each major infrastructure project.
(A) agencies will submit information to OMB, consistent with existing reporting mechanisms to the maximum extent possible, on the assessment areas described in subsection (b)(i) of this section;
(B) at least once per quarter, OMB will produce a scorecard of agency performance and overall progress toward achieving CAP Goal targets;
(C) where an agency's inability to meet a permitting timetable milestone results in a significant delay of the project timeline, after consulting with the project sponsor and relevant agencies, agencies will submit (based on OMB guidance) an estimate of the delay's costs to the project; and
(D) the Director of OMB will consider each agency's performance during budget formulation and determine whether appropriate penalties, including those authorized at 23 U.S.C. 139(h)(7) and 33 U.S.C. 2348(h)(5), must or should be imposed, to the extent required or permitted by law, for those that significantly fail to meet a permitting timetable milestone or in other situations deemed appropriate by the Director of OMB after considering the causes of any poor performance.
(a)
(b)
(A) The framework should be consistent with the model processes established under 42 U.S.C. 4370m–2, 23 U.S.C. 139, 33 U.S.C. 2348, the 2015 “Red Book” (officially entitled “Synchronizing Environmental Reviews for Transportation and Other Infrastructure Projects”), and CEQ guidance on efficient and timely environmental reviews under NEPA.
(B) The framework shall also include guidance on the development of permitting timetables by the lead Federal agencies, in collaboration with Federal cooperating and participating agencies. Permitting timetables shall identify estimated intermediate and final completion dates for all environmental reviews and authorizations that are reasonably anticipated as being needed for a project, including the process for granting extensions of any established dates. The guidance shall specify that lead Federal agencies need not include the estimated intermediate and final completion dates of any such reviews or authorizations until the design of a project has sufficiently advanced so that they can be developed. In such cases, the guidance shall instruct lead Federal agencies to estimate when the project's design will be advanced enough to determine such dates. The timelines shall account for any federally required decisions or permits that are assumed by, or delegated to, State, tribal, or local agencies and the extent to which any approval or permit to be issued by a Federal agency is dependent upon the issuance of such a decision or permit.
(C) CEQ and OMB shall also develop guidance for applying One Federal Decision whenever the lead agency is a State, tribal, or local agency exercising an assignment or delegation of an agency's NEPA responsibilities.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(A) ensure optimal interagency coordination of environmental review and authorization decisions, including by providing for an expanded role and authorities for lead agencies, more clearly defined responsibilities for cooperating and participating agencies, and Government-wide applicability of NEPA decisions and analyses;
(B) ensure that environmental reviews and authorization decisions involving multiple agencies are conducted in a manner that is concurrent, synchronized, timely, and efficient;
(C) provide for agency use, to the maximum extent permitted by law, of environmental studies, analysis, and decisions conducted in support
(D) ensure that agencies apply NEPA in a manner that reduces unnecessary burdens and delays as much as possible, including by using CEQ's authority to interpret NEPA to simplify and accelerate the NEPA review process.
(f)
(g)
(h) The Department of the Interior shall provide to OMB a strategy and recommendations for a multi-agency reorganization effort that would further
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.