| Page Range | 24455-24821 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 24740 - Sunshine Act Notice; Matter to be Deleted From the Agenda of a Previously Announced Agency Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24654 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Texas Hornshell | |
| 82 FR 24775 - Sunshine Act Meeting; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors | |
| 82 FR 24737 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24703 - Request for Nominations of Experts to the EPA Office of Research and Development's Board of Scientific Counselors; Correction | |
| 82 FR 24695 - Applications for New Awards; Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs | |
| 82 FR 24690 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24688 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Extension of Information Collections Under the Dodd-Frank Act | |
| 82 FR 24739 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 24693 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Annual Vocational Rehabilitation Program/Cost Report (RSA-2) | |
| 82 FR 24692 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; IDEA Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
| 82 FR 24694 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; IDEA Part C State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) | |
| 82 FR 24704 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 24705 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 24725 - National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24727 - National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24727 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24726 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24728 - Center For Scientific Review Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24737 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 24677 - Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 82 FR 24775 - Agency Request for Regular Processing of Collection of Information by the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 24731 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request, Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Program, (IHP). | |
| 82 FR 24730 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Disaster Assistance Registration | |
| 82 FR 24702 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 24561 - Capital Construction Fund; Fishing Vessel Capital Construction Fund Procedures | |
| 82 FR 24771 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Extended Operations (ETOPS) of Multi-Engine Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24746 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24679 - Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness: Notice of Public Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24458 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 412EP Helicopter in the 412 EPI Configuration; Search and Rescue (SAR) With Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS) Installation | |
| 82 FR 24740 - Health Information Technology Research and Development (HITRD) Interagency Working Group (IWG) | |
| 82 FR 24770 - Noise Exposure Map Notice for John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City, New York | |
| 82 FR 24773 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Teleconference on Transport Airplane and Engine Issues | |
| 82 FR 24774 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Emergency Approval Request for a New Information Collection. | |
| 82 FR 24773 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments for a New Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 24457 - List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: TN Americas, LLC, NUHOMS® EOS Dry Spent Fuel Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1042 | |
| 82 FR 24732 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0022; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Migratory Birds and Eagles | |
| 82 FR 24704 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10086-Security Bank of Gwinnett County, Suwanee, Georgia | |
| 82 FR 24773 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Automatic Domestic and International Flight Plans | |
| 82 FR 24769 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Representatives of the Administrator | |
| 82 FR 24771 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Automatic Certification and Operation FAR 125 | |
| 82 FR 24569 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; American Plaice Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area Closure for the Common Pool Fishery | |
| 82 FR 24651 - Evaluation of Existing Federal Management and Federal Property Management Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24521 - Inflation Catch-Up Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts Final Rule and Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts for 2017 | |
| 82 FR 24652 - 41 CFR Subtitle F-Federal Travel Regulation System Evaluation of Existing Federal Travel Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24782 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the MyVA Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24675 - Certain Cased Pencils From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 | |
| 82 FR 24653 - Evaluation of Existing Acquisition Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24652 - Evaluation of Existing Leasing Acquisition Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24692 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Historically Black Colleges and Universities Master's Degree Program | |
| 82 FR 24673 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24674 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24674 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24694 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2018 and 2020 | |
| 82 FR 24786 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24667 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Study of School Food Authority (SFA) Procurement Practices | |
| 82 FR 24746 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 | |
| 82 FR 24742 - Exelon Generation Company, LLC; James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant | |
| 82 FR 24704 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 82 FR 24679 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area | |
| 82 FR 24681 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Gull Monitoring and Research in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 24560 - Procedures for Paper Filings and Collecting Application and Regulatory Fees | |
| 82 FR 24737 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Stipulation and Order | |
| 82 FR 24656 - Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual Specifications | |
| 82 FR 24720 - Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 24659 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Assessment of States' Use of Computer Matching Protocols in SNAP | |
| 82 FR 24664 - Agency Information Collection Activities, Comments Request: Evaluation of Alternatives To Improve Elderly Access | |
| 82 FR 24745 - Patient Release Program | |
| 82 FR 24525 - Safety Zone; Buffalo Carnival; Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY | |
| 82 FR 24778 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel TWANOH; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 24779 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SOMEWHERE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 24780 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SEDNA; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 24780 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel RESOLUTE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 24779 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel COYOTE; Invitation for Public Comments | |
| 82 FR 24711 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 24709 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 24707 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 24706 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 24783 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Longitudinal Study Survey | |
| 82 FR 24772 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 24479 - Recordkeeping | |
| 82 FR 24691 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24722 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget Approvals | |
| 82 FR 24611 - BASF Corp.; Filing of Food Additive Petition (Animal Use) | |
| 82 FR 24718 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Submission of Petitions: Food Additive, Color Additive (Including Labeling), Submission of Information to a Master File in Support of Petitions; and Electronic Submission Using Food and Drug Administration Form 3503 | |
| 82 FR 24723 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Additional Criteria and Procedures for Classifying Over-the-Counter Drugs as Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective and Not Misbranded | |
| 82 FR 24715 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 24678 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24677 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24583 - Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order; De Minimis Quantity Exemption Threshold | |
| 82 FR 24671 - Opportunity for Designation in the Aberdeen Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 24726 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24725 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24727 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24725 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 24726 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24714 - Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 24729 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24672 - Opportunity for Designation in the Hastings Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area | |
| 82 FR 24659 - Notice of Meeting of the National Organic Standards Board | |
| 82 FR 24455 - Beef Promotion and Research Rules and Regulations | |
| 82 FR 24766 - Oklahoma Disaster #OK-00113 | |
| 82 FR 24761 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Opening Process | |
| 82 FR 24764 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Amend the Rules of the Exchange, the NYSE MKT Equities Price List, the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, and the NYSE Amex Options Proprietary Market Data Fees | |
| 82 FR 24716 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Submission Process for Voluntary Allegations to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health | |
| 82 FR 24717 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 24751 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the Opening Process | |
| 82 FR 24763 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, Allowing the Exchange To Trade, Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges, Any NMS Stock Listed on Another National Securities Exchange; Establishing Rules for the Trading Pursuant to UTP of Exchange-Traded Products; and Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Trading Halts of Securities Traded Pursuant to UTP on the Pillar Platform | |
| 82 FR 24755 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust California Municipal High Income ETF | |
| 82 FR 24753 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees To Decrease Member Order Routing Program Rebates | |
| 82 FR 24675 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 24611 - Adjustment of Cable Statutory License Royalty Rates | |
| 82 FR 24767 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 24750 - Information Collection: “10 CFR Part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material” | |
| 82 FR 24673 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Hampshire Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24769 - Rescission of Social Security Ruling 91-3p: Policy Interpretation Ruling Title II: Determining Entitlement to Disability Benefits for Months Prior to January 1991 for Widows, Widowers and Surviving Divorced Spouses Claims | |
| 82 FR 24729 - Request for Applicants for Appointment to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24781 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24671 - Sierra County Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 24570 - National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. | |
| 82 FR 24621 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule Revisions; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 24527 - Determination of Attainment and Approval of Base Year Emissions Inventories for the Imperial County, California Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area; Correction | |
| 82 FR 24549 - Air Plan Approval; Maryland; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 82 FR 24636 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Knoxville 1997 Annual PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 24614 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology Measure for Verso Luke Paper Mill | |
| 82 FR 24546 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions From Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units | |
| 82 FR 24529 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 82 FR 24617 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan | |
| 82 FR 24537 - Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Update to Materials Incorporated by Reference | |
| 82 FR 24531 - Air Plan Approval; Washington: General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council | |
| 82 FR 24553 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Muncie Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard | |
| 82 FR 24621 - Air Plan Approval and Air Quality Designation; TN; Redesignation of the Knoxville 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 | |
| 82 FR 24635 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the Muncie Area to Attainment of the 2008 Lead Standard | |
| 82 FR 24582 - Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs | |
| 82 FR 24487 - Whistleblower Awards Process | |
| 82 FR 24462 - Airworthiness Directives; Learjet, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24595 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24597 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24606 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24603 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24601 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24465 - Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24472 - Airworthiness Directives; ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24468 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 24475 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Forest Service
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order) established under the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Act) by adding six Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes for imported veal and veal products and updating assessment levels for imported veal and veal products based on revised determinations of live animal equivalencies. In addition to the foregoing, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Order's definition of “Imported beef or beef products” by deleting its reference to tariff numbers that are no longer in use and obsolete.
Effective June 29, 2017.
Mike Dinkel, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, Research and Promotion Division, Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program; AMS, USDA; Room 2610-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; fax (202) 720-1125; telephone (301) 352-7497; or email
This rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action contained in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in 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). Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601
Based on conversations with importing companies, AMS estimates that approximately 270 importers import beef and beef products and veal and veal products into the U.S. and about 198 importers import live cattle into the U.S. The majority of these operations subject to the Order are considered small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA defines small agricultural service firms as those having annual receipts of $7.5 million or less.
This final rule imposes no significant burden on the industry. Importers are already required to pay assessments. It merely adds six HTS codes for imported veal and veal products and updates assessment rates for imported veal and veal products based on revised determinations of live animal equivalencies. The addition of HTS codes reflects an increase of imported veal and veal products into the U.S. Accordingly, the Acting Administrator of AMS has determined that this action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect.
Section 11 of the Act [7 U.S.C. 2910] provides that nothing in the Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the U.S. or any state. There are no administrative proceedings that must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
In accordance with OMB regulations [5 CFR 1320] that implement the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 U.S.C. Chapter 35], the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in the Order and accompanying Rules and Regulations have previously been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0581-0093.
The Act authorized the establishment of a national beef promotion and research program. The final Order was published in the
Importers pay assessments on imported cattle, beef, and beef products. U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects and remits the assessment on imported cattle, beef, and beef products. The term “importer” is defined as “any person who imports cattle, beef, or beef products from outside the United States” [7 CFR 1260.117]. Imported beef or beef products is defined as “products which are imported into the United States which the Secretary determines contain a substantial amount of beef including those products which have been assigned one or more of the following numbers in the Tariff Schedule of the United States” [7 CFR 1260.121].
On March 16, 2016, AMS published a proposed rule in the
The Act requires that assessments on imported beef and beef products and veal and veal products be determined by converting such imports into live animal equivalents to ascertain the corresponding number of head of cattle. Carcass weight is the principle factor in calculating live animal equivalents.
Prior to publishing the March 16, 2016, proposed rule, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) received information from the Board regarding assessments on imported veal. The Board requested expanding the number of HTS codes for imported veal and veal products in order to capture product that is not currently being assessed and to update the live animal equivalency rate on imported veal to reflect the same assessment as domestic veal and veal products. The Board also suggested that AMS update the dressed veal weight to better reflect current dressed veal weights. The Board recommended using an average dressed veal weight from 2010 to the most current data. The Board stated that establishing an average over this period of time takes into account short-term highs and lows due to the cattle cycle, weather effects, and feed prices. In this final rule, the average dressed weight used to determine the assessment on imported veal and veal products is 154 pounds.
In order to convert carcasses and cuts back to a live animal equivalency, conversion factors are used. The conversion factor takes into account what is lost (feet, head, tail, hide, internal organs, and bone for boneless product) as the veal is processed into carcasses, bone-in cuts, and boneless cuts.
For bone-in carcasses and cuts, a one-to-one ratio is used to convert product weight to a live animal equivalent. For boneless veal cuts, the conversion factor “adds back” the weight of the bones removed from the product.
While the regulatory text in the proposed rule [81 FR 57495] includes two brief tables containing only the specific changes and additions, the regulatory text in this final rule includes comprehensive tables incorporating the changes and additions within previously existing tables that were never intended to be deleted.
Finally, upon further review of this final rule and the Order, AMS discovered that the seven digit HTS codes listed under section 1260.121, which defines the term “Imported beef or beef products,” are no longer in use and obsolete. Those codes were replaced by 10 digit HTS codes currently found in section 7 CFR 1262.172(b)(2) of the Order. As a result, AMS is amending the definition by removing those obsolete HTS code references. No other changes are made to the definition.
On August 23, 2016, AMS published a proposed rule with a request for public comment. AMS received four timely comments. Three comments were received from the Board and national veal and beef industry organizations that were relevant to the proposed rule. One comment was outside the scope of the rulemaking.
Three commenters discussed the conversion factor for bone-in and boneless veal cuts. The commenters agreed with USDA's conversion factor for bone-in veal cuts. However, the commenters disagreed with USDA's conversion factor used for boneless imported veal cuts.
In the proposed rule, AMS used the conversion factor of 1.32 based on Table 7 (Factors used to convert pounds of carcass weight to retail and trimmed, boneless equivalent weights for red meats) of the “Economic Research Service Agricultural Handbook Number 697, Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products (June 1992)” (Handbook). However, the three commenters suggested that AMS should use the conversion factor of 1.46 for veal grading choice and good from Table 10 (Factors for converting pounds of boneless meat to untrimmed bone-in equivalent) of the Handbook because the conversion factor of 1.32 converts the boneless veal back to 0.904 pounds of bone-in veal rather than one pound. The conversion factor of 1.46 (proposed by the commenters) converts 0.685 pounds of boneless veal back to one pound of bone-in veal based on the equation: 0.685(1.46) = 1.0.
AMS believes the comments have merit. Accordingly, the new assessment rates for veal and veal products will be:
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1260 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(b) * * *
(2) The assessment rates for imported cattle, beef, beef products, are as follows:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of June 7, 2017, for the direct final rule that was published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0254 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Edward Lohr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0253; email:
On March 24, 2017 (82 FR 14987), the NRC published a direct final rule amending § 72.214 of title 10 of the
In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on June 7, 2017. As described more fully in the direct final rule, a significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. Because no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule will become effective as scheduled.
The final CoC, technical specifications, and the final Safety Evaluation Report for CoC No. 1042 are available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML17116A277.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Bell Model 412EP (412EPI configuration) helicopter. This helicopter as modified by Bell will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with a SAR AFCS. The applicable airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
These special conditions are effective June 29, 2017. We must receive your comments by July 31, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-0466] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Harrum, Flight Analyst, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group, (ASW-111), 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email
The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period previously and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, and contrary to the public interest, and finds good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment.
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On March 20, 2015, Bell applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for installation of an optional SAR AFCS in certain Model 412EP helicopters. The Model 412EP helicopter, approved under Type Certificate No. H4SW, is a 14 CFR part 29 transport category helicopter certificated in both Category A and Category B and for operation under instrument flight rules under the requirements of Appendix B to Part 29. Bell designated certain serial-numbered Model 412EP helicopters for a specific configuration commercially identified as “412EPI.” The 412 EPI configuration includes the following changes from the 412EP: Installation of the Pratt & Whitney Canada Model PT6T-9 Twin Power Section Turboshaft Engine with Electronic Engine Control, and cockpit instruments and avionics replacement with the Bell BasiX-Pro® Integrated Avionics System. This rotorcraft has a maximum take-off weight of 12,200 pounds. It carries up to 13 passengers with maximum external load of almost 6,614 lbs. and a range up to 609 miles.
The use of dedicated AFCS upper modes, in which a fully coupled autopilot provides operational SAR profiles, is needed for SAR operations conducted over water in offshore areas clear of obstructions. The SAR modes enable the helicopter pilot to fly fully
Flight operations conducted over water at night may have an extremely limited visual horizon with little visual reference to the surface even when conducted under Visual Meteorological Conditions. Consequently, the certification requirements for SAR modes must meet the criteria in Appendix B to Part 29. While Appendix B to Part 29 prescribes airworthiness criteria for instrument flight, it does not consider operations below instrument flight minimum speed (V
The regulations as currently promulgated did not envision instrument flight below the Appendix B envelope, including hover using AFCS modes. This necessitates the development of a special condition to address the gap in 14 CFR part 29 regulations and the lack of adequate airworthiness standards for AFCS SAR mode certification to include flight characteristics, performance, and installed equipment and systems. Also, the requirements of the Bell 412EP Special Conditions No. 29-ASW-5 are not adequate to address the safety objectives for this SAR AFCS design feature. Special Conditions No. 29-ASW-5 only requires provisions for mitigating hazards to required equipment from high intensity radio frequency transmission sources.
The 412EPI configuration SAR operations necessitate safety critical navigation and control functions. These functions allow the rotorcraft to operate under instrument flight rules (IFR) then transition to stabilized visual flight rules hover below required minimum obstacle distances. To safely accomplish this specialized operation, the equipment must possess minimum functional reliability and availability under potentially adverse environmental conditions. The 412EPI configuration SAR equipment operates as an integrated system to accomplish the functions mentioned above.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Bell must show that the 412EP model helicopter in the 412EPI configuration, as changed, continues to meet either the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in type certificate (TC) No. H4SW or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, depending on the significance of the change as defined by 14 CFR 21.101. The regulations incorporated by reference in the TC are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations incorporated by reference in H4SW are as follows:
(a) 14 CFR part 29, dated February 1, 1965, including Amendments 29-1 through 29-51.
(b) 14 CFR 29.141, 29.143, 29.251, 29.301, 29.303, 29.305, 29.307(a), 29.561(c), 29.601(a), 29.603, 29.605, 29.609(a), 29.625, 29.777, 29.831(b)(c)(d), 29.907, 29.993, 29.1023(a), 29.1049, 29.1093. 29.1203(a)(b)(d), 29.1301, 29.1327, 29.1381, 29.1385, 29.1389, 29.1391, 29.1393, 29.1395, 29.1431, 29.1435, 29.1523(a)(b), 29.1541, 29.1543(b), 29.1547, 29.1551, 29.1553, at Amdt. 29-0.
(c) 14 CFR 29.955(a)(1) at Amdt. 29-2.
(d) 14 CFR 29.773(a), 29.901, 29.1191(a)(c)(d)(e)(f), at Amdt. 29-3.
(e) 14 CFR 29.1397 at Amdt. 29-7.
(f) 14 CFR 29.1387 at Amdt 29-9.
(g) 14 CFR part 29.1401 at Amdt. 29-11.
(h) 14 CFR 29.63, 29.939, 29.1165, 29.1322 at Amdt. 29-12.
(i) 14 CFR 29.1145 at Amdt. 29-13.
(j) 14 CFR 29.1335 at Amdt. 29-14.
(k) 14 CFR 29.29, 29.33(a)(1), 29.1353(a)(b), 29.1501, 29.1527, 29.1581(a)(b)(d) at Amdt. 29-15.
(l) 14 CFR 29.1413(a), at Amdt. 29-16.
(m) 14 CFR 29.1091(a)(b), 29.1545 at Amdt. 29-17.
(n) 14 CFR 29.571, 29.1529, 14 CFR part 29 Appendix A at Amdt. 29-20.
(o) 14 CFR 29.1321, 14 CFR part 29 Appendix B I and IX (a)(b) at Amdt. 29-21.
(p) 14 CFR 29.853(a)(2)(c) at Amdt. 29-23.
(q) 14 CFR 29.21, 29.45(a)(b)(c)(e)(f), 29.151, 29.672(a), 29.771(a)(b)(c), 29.1303, 29.1325, 29.1331, 29.1333, 29.1355, 29.1357(a)(c)(d)(e)(g), 29.1517, 29.1555(a)(b)(c)(d), 29.1559, 29.1583, 29.1585 at Amdt. 29-24.
(r) 14 CFR 29.1011(d), 29.1041, 29.1043, 29.1045, 29.1047, 29.1141(a)(b)(c)(d)(f)(2), 29.1337(a)(b)(1)(2)(c)(d)(e), 29.1557(c)(2) at Amdt. 29-26.
(s) 14 CFR 29.337(a), 29.613(d), at Amdt. 29-30.
(t) 14 CFR 29.783(e), 29.903(a)(b)(c)(3)(d)(e) at Amdt. 29-31
(u) 14CFR 29.1143(a)(b)(c)(e)(f), 29.1549 at Amdt. 29-34.
(v) 14 CFR 29.49(a)(b)(c), 29.51, 29.53, 29.55, 29.60, 29.61, 29.64, 29.65(a), 29.75, 29.79, 29.83(a)(b), 29.87(a), at Amdt. 29-39.
(w) 14 CFR 29.1305(a)(3)(4)(6-19)(21-23)(25)(26)(b)(c), 29.1309(a)(b)(2)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h), 14 CFR part 29 Appendix B VIII (a)(b)(3)(4)(5)(6)(c), at Amdt. 29-40.
(x) 14 CFR 29.1521(a)(b)(1)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(ii)(c)(4)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j) at Amdt. 29-41.
(y) 14 CFR 29.1329(f), 29.1351(a)(b)(3)(4)(6)(d), 29.1359 at Amdt. 29-42.
(z) 14 CFR 29.865(c)(6) at Amdt. 29-43.
(aa) 14 CFR 29.59, 29.62, 29.67, 29.77, 29.81, 29.85, 29.1323(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) at Amdt. 29-44.
(bb) 14 CFR 29.1317(a)(b)(c), 14 CFR part 29 Appendix E at Amdt. 29-49.
(cc) 14 CFR 29.1587 at Amdt. 29-51.
(dd) Equivalent Level of Safety Findings:
(1) 14 CFR 29.1305(a)(11-16) and 29.1549(a)(b)(c)(e) for the Power Situation Indicator (documented in ELOS Memo No. ST0025RC-RD/P-1) dated January 16, 2013.
(2) 14 CFR 29.1545(b)(2) for Airspeed Indicator (documented in ELOS Memo No. ST0025RC-RD/F-2) dated September 27, 2012.
(3) 14 CFR 29.1333(a) and 14 CFR part 29 Appendix B VIII(b)(5)(i) and (ii) for Electronically Integrated Flight Instrument Systems (documented in ELOS Memo No. ST0025RC-RD/S-2) dated January 25, 2013.
(4) 14 CFR 29.1555(c)(1) for the Useable Fuel Capacity Marking (documented in ELOS Memo No. ST0025RC-RD/P-2) dated December 18, 2012.
(ee) If BHT Kit 412-706-140, Increased Gross Weight, is installed then compliance has also been shown to 14 CFR 29.25(a)(1)(3)(4) Amend 29-51, 14 CFR part 29 Appendix B III, IV(a)(b)(1)(3)(c)(1)(d)(1)(e)(f), V, VI, VII at Amend 29-21 and 14 CFR 36.1(c) at Amend 36-14.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, under § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the TC for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same TC be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.
The Bell Model 412EP helicopter in the 412EPI configuration will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features.
The SAR system is composed of a navigation computer with SAR modes, an AFCS that provides coupled SAR functions, hoist operator control, a hover speed reference system, and two radio altimeters. The AFCS coupled SAR functions include:
(a) Hover hold at selected height above the surface.
(b) Ground speed hold.
(c) Transition down and hover to a waypoint under guidance from the navigation computer.
(d) SAR pattern, transition down, and hover near a target over which the helicopter has flown.
(e) Transition up, climb, and capture a cruise height.
(f) Capture and track SAR search patterns generated by the navigation computer.
(g) Monitor the preselected hover height with automatic increase in collective if the aircraft height drops below the safe minimum height.
These SAR modes are intended to be used over large bodies of water in areas clear of obstructions. Further, use of the modes that transition down from cruise to hover will include operation at airspeeds below V
The SAR system only entails navigation, flight control, and coupled AFCS operation of the helicopter. The system does not include additional equipment that may be required for over water flight or external loads to meet other operational requirements.
These special conditions apply to the Bell Model 412EP helicopter in the 412EPI configuration. Should Bell apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(d).
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the helicopter.
Aircraft, Aviation safety.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (Bell) Model 412EP helicopters in the 412EPI configuration when modified by Bell by installing an optional Search and Rescue (SAR) Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS).
In addition to the 14 CFR part 29 certification requirements for Category A and helicopter instrument flight (Appendix B), the following additional requirements must be met for certification of the SAR AFCS:
(a)
(1) Safe and controlled flight in the three axes at all airspeeds (lateral position and speed, longitudinal position and speed, and height and vertical speed) from the previous V
(2) Automatic transition to the helicopter instrument flight (Appendix B) envelope as part of the normal SAR mode sequencing.
(3) A pilot-selectable Go-Around mode that safely interrupts any other coupled mode and automatically transitions the helicopter to the instrument flight (Appendix B) envelope.
(4) A means to prevent unintended flight below a safe minimum height. Pilot-commanded descent below the safe minimum height is acceptable provided the alerting requirements in paragraph (b)(8)(i) of these Special Conditions alert the pilot of this descent below safe minimum height.
(b)
(1) Ground mapping radar function that presents real-time information to the pilots.
(2) A system for limiting the engine power demanded by the AFCS when any of the automatic piloting modes are engaged, so full authority digital engine control power limitations, such as torque and temperature, are not exceeded.
(3) A system providing the aircraft height above the surface and final pilot-selected height at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that will make it plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(4) A system providing the aircraft heading and the ability to automatically hold a pilot-selected heading set by either setting the reference to the current heading or adjusting the reference left or right. If the reference setting can change faster than the aircraft ability to follow, a display of reference heading is required at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that will make it plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(5) A system providing the aircraft longitudinal and lateral hover velocities and the pilot-selected longitudinal and lateral velocities when used by the AFCS in the flight envelope where airspeed indications become unreliable. This information must be presented at a location on the instrument panel in a position acceptable to the FAA that is plainly visible to and usable by any pilot at their station.
(6) A system providing wind speed and wind direction when automatic piloting modes are engaged or transitioning from one mode to another.
(7) A means to monitor for flight guidance deviations and failures with alerting that enables the flight crew take appropriate corrective action.
(8) An alerting system that provides visual or aural alerts, or both, to the flight crew under any of the following conditions:
(i) When the stored or pilot-selected safe minimum height is reached.
(ii) When a SAR mode system malfunction occurs.
(iii) When the AFCS changes modes automatically from one SAR mode to another. For normal transitions from one SAR mode to another, a single visual or aural alert may suffice. For a SAR mode malfunction or a mode having a time-critical component, the flight crew alerting system must activate early enough to allow the flight crew to take timely and appropriate action. The alerting system means must be designed to alert the flight crew in order to minimize crew errors that could create an additional hazard.
(9) The SAR system hoist operator control is considered a flight control with limited authority and must comply with the following:
(i) The hoist operator control must be designed and located to provide for convenient operation and to prevent confusion and inadvertent operation.
(ii) The helicopter must be safely controllable by the hoist operator control throughout the range of that control.
(iii) The hoist operator control may not interfere with the safe operation of the helicopter.
(iv) Pilot and copilot flight controls must be able to smoothly override the control authority of the hoist operator control, without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without the danger of exceeding any other limitation because of the override.
(10) The reliability of the AFCS must be related to the effects of its failure. The occurrence of any failure condition that would prevent continued safe flight and landing must be extremely improbable. For any failure condition of the AFCS which is shown to not be extremely improbable:
(i) The helicopter must be safely controllable and capable of continued safe flight without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength. Additional unrelated probable failures affecting the control system must be evaluated.
(ii) The AFCS must be designed so that it cannot create a hazardous deviation in the flight path or produce hazardous loads on the helicopter during normal operation or in the event of a malfunction or failure, assuming corrective action begins within an appropriate period of time. Where multiple systems are installed, subsequent malfunction conditions must be evaluated in sequence unless their occurrence is shown to be improbable.
(11) A functional hazard assessment and a system safety assessment must address the failure conditions associated with SAR operations:
(i) For SAR catastrophic failure conditions, changes may be required to the following:
(A) System architecture.
(B) Software and complex electronic hardware design assurance levels.
(C) High Intensity Radiated Field (HIRF) test levels.
(D) Instructions for continued airworthiness.
(ii) The assessments must consider all the systems required for SAR operations, including the AFCS, all associated AFCS sensors (for example, radio altimeter), and primary flight displays. Electrical and electronic systems with SAR catastrophic failure conditions for both visual flight rules and IFR must comply with the 14 CFR 29.1317(a)(4) HIRF requirements.
(c)
(1) The SAR modes must be demonstrated for the requested flight envelope, including the following minimum sea-state and wind conditions:
(i) Sea State: Wave height of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet), considering both short and long swells.
(ii) Wind: 25 knots headwind; 17 knots for all other azimuths.
(2) The selected hover height and hover velocity must be captured (including the transition from one captured mode to another captured mode) accurately and smoothly and not exhibit any significant overshoot or oscillation.
(3) The minimum use height (MUH) for the SAR modes must be no less than the maximum loss of height following any single failure or any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable, plus an additional margin of 15 feet above the surface. MUH is the minimum height at which any SAR AFCS mode may be engaged.
(4) The SAR mode system must be usable up to the maximum certified gross weight of the aircraft or to the lower of the following weights:
(i) Maximum emergency flotation weight.
(ii) Maximum hover Out-of-Ground Effect (OGE) weight.
(iii) Maximum demonstrated weight.
(d)
(1) For SAR mode coupled flight below V
(2) For coupled flight below the previously established V
(i) Static Longitudinal Stability: The requirements of Appendix B to part 29, paragraph IV are not applicable.
(ii) Static Lateral-Directional Stability: The requirements of Appendix B to part 29, paragraph V are not applicable.
(iii) Dynamic Stability, paragraph VI:
(A) Any oscillation must be damped and any aperiodic response must not double in amplitude in less than 10 seconds. This requirement must also be met with degraded upper mode(s) of the AFCS.
(B) After any upset, such as a wind gust, the AFCS must return the aircraft to the last commanded flight condition within 10 seconds or less.
(3) With any of the upper modes of the AFCS engaged, the pilot must be able to manually recover the aircraft and transition to the normal (Appendix B) IFR flight profile envelope without exceptional skill, alertness, or strength.
(e)
(1) The following performance information must be provided in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement (RFMS):
(i) OEI performance information and emergency procedures, providing the maximum weight that will provide a minimum clearance of 15 feet above the surface, following failure of the critical engine in a hover. The maximum weight must be presented as a function of the hover height for the temperature and pressure altitude range requested for certification. The effects of wind must be reflected in the hover performance information.
(ii) Hover OGE performance with the critical engine inoperative for OEI continuous and time-limited power ratings for those weights, altitudes, and temperatures for which certification is requested.
(2) These OEI performance requirements do not replace performance requirements that may be needed to comply with the airworthiness or operational standards (14 CFR 29.865 or 14 CFR part 133) for external loads or human external cargo.
(f)
(1) The RFMS must contain, at a minimum:
(i) Limitations necessary for safe operation of the SAR system, including:
(A) Minimum crew requirements.
(B) Maximum SAR weight.
(C) Engagement criteria for each of the SAR modes to include MUH, as determined in paragraph (c)(3) of these Special Conditions.
(ii) Normal and emergency procedures for operation of the SAR system (including operation of the hoist operator control) with AFCS failure modes, AFCS degraded modes, and engine failures.
(iii) Performance information:
(A) OEI performance and height-loss.
(B) Hover OGE performance information, utilizing OEI continuous and time-limited power ratings.
(C) The maximum wind envelope demonstrated in flight test.
(D) Information and/or advisory information concerning operations in a heavy salt spray environment, including any airframe or power effects as a result of salt encrustation.
(g)
(1) Before approval of the SAR system, an acceptable flight demonstration of all coupled SAR modes is required.
(2) The AFCS must provide fail-safe operations during coupled maneuvers. The demonstration of fail-safe operations must include a pilot workload assessment associated with manually flying the aircraft to an altitude greater than 200 feet above the surface and an airspeed of at least the best rate of climb airspeed (V
(3) For any failure condition of the SAR system shown to not be extremely improbable, the pilot must be able to make a smooth transition from one flight mode to another without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
(4) Failure conditions that are shown to not be extremely improbable must be demonstrated by analysis, ground testing, or flight testing. For failures demonstrated in flight, the following normal pilot recovery times are acceptable:
(i) Transition modes (Cruise-to-Hover/Hover-to-Cruise) and Hover modes: Normal pilot recognition plus 1 second.
(ii) Cruise modes: Normal pilot recognition plus 3 seconds.
(5) All AFCS malfunctions must include evaluation at the low-speed and high-power flight conditions typical of SAR operations. Additionally, AFCS hard-over, slow-over, and oscillatory malfunctions, particularly in yaw, require evaluation. AFCS malfunction testing must include a single or a combination of failures (such as, erroneous data from and loss of the radio altimeter, attitude, heading, and altitude sensors) that are shown to not be extremely improbable.
(6) The flight demonstration must include the following environmental conditions:
(i) Swell into wind.
(ii) Swell and wind from different directions.
(iii) Cross swell.
(iv) Swell of different lengths (short and long swell).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-08-07 for certain Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes. AD 2017-08-07 required a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD retains the actions of AD 2017-08-07 and removes certain airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that only certain airplanes are affected by the unsafe condition. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 30, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22, 2017 (82 FR 18084, April 17, 2017).
We must receive comments on this AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone: 316-946-2000; fax: 316-946-2220; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4152; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
On April 7, 2017, we issued AD 2017-08-07, Amendment 39-18856 (82 FR 18084, April 17, 2017) (“AD 2017-08-07”), for Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes, serial numbers 60-002 through 60-430 inclusive. AD 2017-08-07 required a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2017-08-07 resulted from an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to multi-site damage (MSD). We issued AD 2017-08-07 to detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since we issued AD 2017-08-07, we determined that only certain airplanes identified in the applicability of AD 2017-08-07 are affected by the unsafe condition. For Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes, serial numbers 60-002 through 60-430 inclusive, the unsafe condition affects only airplanes with a dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle and
We reviewed Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the fuselage crown skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This AD also requires sending the inspection results to the FAA.
Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this AD requires repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
• In accordance with a method that we approve; or
• Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by a Delegated Engineering Representative (DER) for Learjet Inc., or a Unit Member (UM) of the Learjet Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), whom we have authorized to make those findings.
We consider this AD interim action. Because the cause of the corrosion is not known, the inspection reports will help determine the extent of the corrosion in the affected fleet. Based on the results of these reports, we might determine that further corrective action is warranted. Once further corrective action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.
We determined that unaffected airplanes were inadvertently included in the applicability of AD 2017-08-07, which applied to Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes, serial numbers 60-002 through 60-430 inclusive. However, only airplanes identified in Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, are subject to the identified unsafe condition. The actions required by this AD are not required to be done on airplanes that are not identified in Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016. Therefore, we are superseding AD 2017-08-07 to correct the applicability. We find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
This AD adds no additional economic burden.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all known costs in our cost estimate.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective May 30, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2017-08-07, Amendment 39-18856 (82 FR 18084, April 17, 2017) (“AD 2017-08-07”).
This AD applies to Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 60-002 through 60-430 inclusive, and having a configuration identified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD.
(1) Airplanes with a dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle.
(2) Airplanes that have had the dorsal-mounted oxygen bottle removed but have retained the oxygen line fairing installed on top of the fuselage.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to multi-site damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-08-07, with no changes. At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the fuselage skin between stringers (S)-2L and S-2R for corrosion; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) For airplanes with more than 12 years since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of May 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-08-07): Within 12 months after May 22, 2017.
(2) For airplanes with more than 6 years but equal to or less than 12 years since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of May 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-08-07): Within 24 months after May 22, 2017.
(3) For airplanes with 6 years or less since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of May 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-08-07): Within 36 months after May 22, 2017.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2017-08-07, with no changes. Where Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, specifies contacting Learjet, Inc., for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2017-08-07, with no changes. At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD to:
(1) If the inspection was done on or after May 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-08-07): Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before May 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-08-07): Submit the report within 30 days after May 22, 2017.
This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (j) of AD 2017-08-07, with no
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
(1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by a Learjet, Inc., Designated Engineering Representative (DER), or a Unit Member (UM) of the Learjet Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), that has been authorized by the Manager, Wichita ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-08-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4152; fax: 316-946-4107; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 18084, April 17, 2017).
(i) Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(4) For Learjet, Inc., service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone: 316-946-2000; fax: 316-946-2220; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(6) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-07-07 for British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP 137 Jetstream MK1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Series 3101 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the forward main landing gear yoke pintle resulting from corrosion pits leading to stress corrosion cracking. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publications listed in the AD as of July 5, 2017.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207; fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to British Aerospace Regional Aircraft Model HP 137 Jetstream MK1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Series 3101 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:
Prompted by occurrences of the main landing gear (MLG) yoke pintle housing cracking, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) UK issued AD 003-01-86 to require repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the yoke pintle housing on MLG fitted to Jetstream 3100 aeroplanes in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Service Bulletin (SB) 32-A-JA851226, and, depending on findings, corrective action. After that AD was issued, an occurrence was reported of Jetstream 3100 MLG failure after landing. The subsequent investigation revealed stress corrosion cracking of the MLG yoke pintle housing to have caused this MLG failure. Furthermore, the investigation report recommended a review of the effectiveness of CAA UK AD 003-01-86 in finding cracks in the yoke pintle housing on MLG fitted to Jetstream 3100 aeroplanes.
Degradation of the surface protection by abrasion can occur when the forward face of the yoke pintle rotates against the pintle bearing, which introduces corrosion pits and, consequently, stress corrosion cracking.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to structural failure of the MLG, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane during take-off or landing runs.
To provide protection of the affected area of the MLG assembly spigot housing, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-JM7862 to provide instructions for installation of a protective washer, fitted at the forward spigot on both left hand and right hand MLG. Consequently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued SB 32-A-JA851226 Revision 05 to provide additional accomplishment instructions for a Non-destructive testing (NDT) inspection of MLG equipped with the protective washer installed in accordance with BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB 32-JM7862.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0208, retaining the requirements of CAA UK AD 003-01-86, which was superseded, and required implementation of revised inspection requirements, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). That AD also introduced an optional modification, which constituted terminating action for the inspections required by that AD.
Since that AD was issued, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has determined that the existing inspection procedure may not be effective in identifying stress corrosion cracking in the pintle housing. Consequently BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has published an improved inspection procedure in SB 32-A-JA851226 Revision 07. This improved inspection procedure has the ability to detect smaller corrosion pits and cracks that are proximate in size to those that will initiate stress corrosion.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0208, which is superseded, and requires MLG inspections in accordance with the improved procedure.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 7, dated May 25, 2015. The service information describes procedures for nondestructive testing (NDT) and visual inspections of the main landing gear spigot housing for cracks and repair if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 14 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate this cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $30,940, or $1,190 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $5,000, for a cost of $5,170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 5, 2017.
This AD supersedes AD 2014-07-07, Amendment 39-17821 (79 FR 23897, April 29, 2014) (“2014-07-07”).
This AD applies to British Aerospace (Operations) Limited Model HP.137 Jetstream Mk.1, Jetstream Series 200, and Jetstream Series 3101 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing Gear.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracking of the forward main landing gear yoke pintle resulting from corrosion pits which can cause stress corrosion cracking resulting in loss of control during take-off or landing. We are issuing this AD to revise the inspection procedure to detect smaller corrosion pits and cracks that could initiate stress corrosion cracking.
Unless already done, do the following actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(i) 100 hours TIS × .75 = 75 cycles; and
(ii) 1,000 hours TIS × .75 = 750 cycles.
(1) This AD allows credit for the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD if done before June 3, 2014 (the effective date retained from AD 2014-07-07) following British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 5, dated April 30, 2013.
(2) This AD allows credit for the initial inspection required in paragraph (f)(4) of this AD if done before June 3, 2014 (the effective date retained from AD 2014-07-07) following APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin 32-40, at Initial Issue dated June 21, 1989; or APPH Ltd. Service Bulletin 32-40, Revision 1, dated February, 2003.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2016-0224, dated November 9, 2016, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) British Aerospace Jetstream Series 3100 & 3200 Service Bulletin 32-A-JA851226, Revision 7, dated May 25, 2015.
(ii) Heroux Devtek Service Bulletin 32-19, Revision 7, dated March 16, 2015.
(3) For British Aerospace Regional Aircraft service information identified in this AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; phone: +44 1292 675207, fax: +44 1292 675704; email:
(4) You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-21-01 for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-300 and 737-400 series airplanes. AD 2009-21-01 required repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the aft fuselage skin, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This new AD adds certain inspections, repairs, replacement, related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and removes certain airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and by reports of aft fuselage cracking. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2009-21-01, Amendment 39-16038 (74 FR 52395, October 13, 2009) (“AD 2009-21-01”). AD 2009-21-01 applied to certain the Boeing Company Model 737-300 and 737-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that we revise the precipitating event statement by including that there have been reports of aft fuselage cracking. Boeing stated that this revision would be consistent with wording of other related rulemaking.
We agree with Boeing's request because it provides additional clarity to the precipitating event statement. We have revised the
Jet2.com Limited (Jet2) requested that we revise the NPRM to require reinstalling the lap joint modification previously installed in accordance with AD 2015-21-06, Amendment 39-18298 (80 FR 69839, November 12, 2015) (“AD 2015-21-06”), which requires the S-14 lap joint to be trimmed out prior to 50,000 total flight cycles. Jet2 stated that Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 4, dated June 3, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4”) specifies reinstalling the lap joint modification.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. The modification required in AD 2015-21-06 consists of trimming out the lap splice, such that if this modification were installed, it would be impossible to install a new skin without reinstalling the lap modification. If the instructions in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, to reinstall the lap splice modification were accidently overlooked, it would become clear to the installer that the reinstallation would be required. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we add a paragraph to the proposed AD to address repairs that are installed on the airplane for reasons other than chem-mill cracking. Boeing submitted suggested language and pointed out that the additional language is similar to that in other rulemaking.
We disagree with Boeing's request. Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, does not make a distinction regarding why an existing repair was installed. Therefore, repairs installed for damage other than a chem-mill crack are already addressed. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD to do the actions at an initial compliance time obtained through the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process specified in paragraph (n)(1) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the repetitive inspections would still be done at the times specified in the service information. Boeing also requested that we include in the paragraph revision the terminating action of skin panel replacement at the time approved through an AMOC. Boeing stated that its request would provide a reset on the compliance times if the skin panel was replaced prior to 53,000 total airplane cycles. Boeing explained that its authorized representative under the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) cannot approve extensions to the compliance times.
We partially agree with Boeing's request. We agree that, for airplanes with skin panels replaced prior to 53,000 total flight cycles, in order to reset the inspection threshold on the replaced skin panels, approval must come from the FAA. Under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this AD, we may consider requests for a reset of the compliance times if the skin panel was replaced prior to 53,000 total airplane cycles if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we add the specific part of the accomplishment instructions in paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specifies the specific part number, and that this change would make these paragraphs consistent with the wording in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD.
We agree with Boeing's request. We agree that specifying the specific part of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, will add clarity to the AD. We have revised paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (l) of the proposed AD to specify that skin panel replacements using the kit identified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, do not have the lower flight cycle limit restriction that the production skin panel replacements have.
We agree with Boeing's request because the skin panel replacements using the kit identified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, is an improved design compared to the production skin panels, and therefore, do not need the lower flight cycle limit restriction. We have added paragraph (l)(3) to this AD, which states, in part, that if the skin panel is replaced with a kit skin panel as specified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, the 53,000 total flight cycle limit does not apply.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (n)(5) of the proposed AD to remove the flight cycle restriction for certain previously accomplished actions using certain service information. Boeing stated that the only skin panel replacements specified in previous revisions of SASB 737-53-1168 are those using the kit panels, and that those panels do not have the flight-cycle limit specified in paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (n)(5) of the proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter's request because the skin panel replacements using the kit identified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, are an improved design compared to the production skin panels, and therefore, do not need the lower flight cycle limit restriction. We have revised paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (n)(5) of this AD accordingly.
Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) requested that we revise paragraphs (g) and (l) of the proposed AD to specify terminating action. Qantas pointed out that replacing the skin panels with kit panels instead of production panels, as specified in SASB 737-53-1168, terminates the repetitive inspections identified in paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD. Additionally, Qantas pointed out that replacement with kit skin panels using any revision of SASB 737-53-1168 before the effective date of the AD should also terminate the repetitive inspections identified in paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of the proposed AD.
We agree with the commenter's request because the skin panel replacements using the kit identified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, are an improved design compared to the production skin panels and therefore, should terminate the repetitive inspections. We have revised paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (n)(5) of this AD accordingly.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.
We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not affect the ability to
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections of the fuselage skin, repairs, and skin panel replacement. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary post-repair inspections that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2009-21-01, Amendment 39-16038 (74 FR 52395, October 13, 2009) (“AD 2009-21-01”).
(1) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 4, dated June 3, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4”).
(2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE (
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and reports of aft fuselage cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft fuselage skin along the longitudinal edges of the chem-milled pockets in the bonded skin doubler, which could result in possible rapid decompression and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections to detect cracks in the aft fuselage skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4. Accomplishment of a repair in accordance with “Part 4: Repair” of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph at the repaired locations only.
(1) Where SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, specifies compliance times “after the Revision 4 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance times after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The Condition column of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, refers to airplanes in certain configurations as of the “issue date of Revision 4 of this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to airplanes in the specified configurations “as of the effective date of this AD.”
(3) Where SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or work instructions, before further flight, repair or perform the work instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes on which an operator has a record that a skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel before 53,000 total flight cycles: At the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in tables 1 and 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, perform inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with a time-limited repair installed, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006: At the applicable times specified in table 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4.
(ii) Make the time-limited repair permanent, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
(2) For airplanes with a time-limited repair installed, as specified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4: At the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4.
(ii) Make the time-limited repair permanent, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
For airplanes with an existing time-limited repair that was made permanent, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006: At the applicable times specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) of this AD, modify the existing permanent repair, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, except as required
Table 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, specifies post-repair airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the repaired locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an AMOC.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (1)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD: Replace the applicable skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Doing the skin panel replacement required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided the skin panel replacement was done with a production skin panel after 53,000 total flight cycles.
(1) Before 60,000 total flight cycles, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
(3) If the skin panel is replaced with a production skin panel, not before 53,000 total flight cycles. If the skin panel is replaced with a kit skin panel as specified in SASB 737-53-1168, Revision 4, the 53,000 total flight cycle limit does not apply.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-21-01.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 3, dated November 28, 2006, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-21-01.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 17, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-21-01), using any service information specified in paragraphs (m)(3)(i), (m)(3)(ii), and (m)(3)(iii) of this AD, provided the replacement is made with a kit skin panel, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. The service information specified in paragraphs (m)(3)(i), (m)(3)(ii), and (m)(3)(iii) of this AD was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-21-01.
(i) Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, dated March 16, 1995.
(ii) Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 1, dated August 17, 1995.
(iii) Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 2, dated November 27, 1996.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved previously for repairs required by AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) AMOCs approved previously for modifications done as optional terminating action for AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the skin panel replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1168, Revision 4, dated June 3, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-11-12 for ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-242L airplanes (type certificate previously held by MORAVAN a.s.). This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 9, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication as of June 5, 2003 (68 FR 32629, June 2, 2003).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s., Letiště 1887, 765 02 Otrokovice, Czech Republic, telephone: +420 725 266 711; fax: +420 226 013 830; email:
Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-242L airplanes (type certificate previously held by MORAVAN a.s.). That NPRM was published in the
Since we issued AD 2003-11-12, a revision to the airworthiness limitations chapter of the aircraft maintenance manual has been issued, and the State of Design airworthiness authority took AD action, as identified below.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.: 2017-0005, dated January 10, 2017 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations for the Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are defined and published in Chapter 9 of Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L Maintenance Manual (MM)—Volume I Document 003.021.1 (in Czech language) or in Chapter 9 of Z 242 L MM—Volume I Document 003.22.1 (in English language). These instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
Zlin Aircraft a.s. recently published Revision 22 to Chapter 9, Volume I, of the Z 242 L MM, introducing new and/or more restrictive limitations.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the Zlin Aircraft a.s. Z 242 L MM Chapter 9, Volume I, at Revision 22.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed Chapter 9, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision No. 22, dated March 15, 2016, of ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Z 242 L DOC. No. 003.22.1 Maintenance Manual-Vol. I., and Moravan-Aeroplanes a.s. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 142C/17a, Z 242L/37a—Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000. The revision to the Limitations sections introduces new and/or more restrictive safe life limits for the Model Z 242 airplane. The mandatory service bulletin describes procedures for annotating acrobatic and utility category operational time in the logbook. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD will affect 30 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the requirement to incorporate the new revision into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,550, or $85 per product.
The above costs only account for the time to incorporate the document into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program. These limitations will impose more restrictive life limits on some parts and provide new life limits for others. While the cost of these replacements could be expensive, they will only be required to operate the airplane past the established times. Ultimately, the estimated cost of replacing all life-limited parts could come close to the cost of the airplane. These life limits are necessary to continue to operate the airplane in an airworthy manner.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 5, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2003-11-12, Amendment 39-13171 (68 FR 32629, June 2, 2003) (“AD 2003-11-12”).
This AD applies to ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Model Z-242L airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 9, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (
Unless already done, do the following actions:
(1)
(2)
(i) On or before 10 days after June 5, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-11-12), incorporate aerobatic frequency information into the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM) as specified in Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/38a—Rev. 1, April 15, 2003. The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 may do this action. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of this AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(ii) On or before reaching 190 hours time-in-service in the Acrobatic category and/or Utility category or on or before 90 days after March 21, 2003 (the effective date of AD 2003-03-13), whichever occurs later, insert the following information into the Limitations section of the airplane flight manual (AFM): “Do not operate in the Acrobatic or Utility category. Operate in the Normal category only.” The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may accomplish this AFM insertion of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with these portions of this AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). This operational restriction is referenced in Moravan-Aeroplanes a.s. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 142C/17a, Z 242L/37a—Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000.
(3)
(4)
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2017-0005, dated January 10, 2017, for related information. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on July 5, 2017 (the effective date of this AD).
(i) Chapter 9, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision No. 22, dated March 15, 2016, of ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s. Z 242 L DOC. No. 003.22.1 Maintenance Manual—Vol. I.
(ii) Moravan-Aeroplanes a.s. Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 142C/17a, Z 242L/37a—Rev. 1, dated October 31, 2000.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on June 5, 2003 (68 FR 32629, June 2, 2003).
(i) Moravan Mandatory Service Bulletin Z 242L/38a—Rev.1, April 15, 2003.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact ZLIN AIRCRAFT a.s., Letiště 1887, 765 02 Otrokovice, Czech Republic, telephone: +420 725 266 711; fax: +420 226 013 830; email:
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-400 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH), which indicates that the aft fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD), and reports of aft fuselage skin cracking. This AD requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking of the aft fuselage skin, inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers, permanent repairs of time-limited repairs, related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, and skin panel replacement. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 5, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that we revise the proposed AD to address repairs that are
We do not agree with Boeing's request. Paragraph 3.B.1 in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1187 R3”), which is the referenced source of service information in this AD, already addresses the issue raised by Boeing. SASB 737-53-1187 R3 does not make a distinction between repairs installed for chem-mill cracking and repairs installed for other reasons. Therefore, repairs that are installed for any reason, provided they meet the service information criteria, are already addressed. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise the compliance time in paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD from the time specified in SASB 737-53-1187 R3, to a time approved by the FAA through the alternative method of compliance (AMOC) process.
Boeing provided examples of how replacing skin panels at certain compliance times would require further skin panel replacement before reaching the airplane limit of validity. Boeing explained that the NPRM proposed skin panel replacement at 60,000 total flight cycles; therefore, an FAA approval to adjust the compliance time from total flight cycles to cycles after skin panel replacement would be required.
We partially agree with Boeing's request. Airplanes that have had a skin replacement with a production skin panel, as distinguished from an improved-design kit skin panel, prior to 53,000 total flight cycles may be eligible for an adjustment of the inspection threshold. Currently, such an adjustment of the AD compliance time is not delegated to Boeing's authorized representatives, and the change must be approved by the FAA. However, we consider the number of airplanes affected by this scenario to be quite small. Therefore, we have decided to approve such changes to the compliance times on a case-by-case basis using the procedures specified in paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. Although we agree with the comment, we have not changed this AD in this regard.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of the proposed AD by specifying doing part 6 of the service information. Boeing stated that specifying the service information part reference would make the language consistent with paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, which specifies the service information part reference.
We agree with Boeing's request. These changes will increase the paragraphs' clarity. We have revised paragraphs (i)(1)(ii), (i)(2)(ii), and (j) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise the provision of paragraph (l) of the proposed AD, which would provide for terminating action if the skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel. Boeing indicated that terminating action should also apply to airplanes with the skin panel replacement kit (S-20 to S-25 (left and right)) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187. Boeing stated that the skin panel replacement using the kit specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187 does not have the lower flight cycle limit restriction of the production panel replacement. Boeing explained that once the kit skin panel is replaced, the inspections specified in SASB 737-53-1187 R3, are terminated.
We agree with Boeing's request. The kit skin panels are an improved design compared with the original production skin panels, have different inspection requirements, and provide terminating action. We have revised paragraph (l) of this AD accordingly.
Boeing requested that we revise paragraphs (m)(2), (m)(3), and (n)(5) of the proposed AD by removing the flight-cycle restriction for credit for the skin panel replacement. Boeing explained that the only skin panel replacement specified in the service information referenced in paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(3) of the proposed AD is the skin panel replacement kit, which can be accomplished at any time.
Boeing stated that it assumed that only the kit skin panel replacements, and not the original production skin panels, are approved as AMOCs for AD 2009-21-01, Amendment 39-16038 (74 FR 52395, October 13, 2009) (“AD 2009-21-01”). Boeing asserted that, therefore, paragraph (n)(5) of the proposed AD should approve previous modifications done as optional terminating action for AD 2009-21-01 as AMOCs for the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD without the flight-cycle restriction.
We partially agree with Boeing's request. The kit skin panels are an improved design compared with the original production skin panels and have different inspection requirements. We have revised paragraphs (m)(2) and (m)(3) of this AD by removing the flight-cycle restriction.
However, in order to address airplanes that have had production skin panels replaced through AMOCs for AD 2009-21-01, paragraph (n)(5) of this AD retains the flight-cycle restriction.
We agree to approve AMOCs for AD 2009-21-01 that require using the skin panel kit specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187 as AMOCs for the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD without the flight-cycle restriction. We have added paragraph (n)(6) to this AD, which states that AMOCs approved for previous modifications done as optional terminating action for AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD provided the skin modification replacement was done using the skin panel kit specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed SASB 737-53-1187 R3. The service information describes procedures for doing inspections of the fuselage skin, repairs, and skin panel replacement. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We estimate that this AD affects 84 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary post-repair inspections that would be required. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective July 5, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-400 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2015 (“SASB 737-53-1187 R3”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) which indicates that the aft fuselage skin is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD) and reports of aft fuselage skin cracking. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the aft fuselage skin along the longitudinal edges of the bonded skin doubler, which could result in possible rapid decompression
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
At the applicable times specified in tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do the applicable inspections to detect cracks in the aft fuselage skin panels; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraphs (h)(3) and (h)(4) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3. Accomplishment of a repair in accordance with “Part 4: Repair” of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, is terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph at the repaired locations only.
(1) Where SASB 737-53-1187 R3, specifies compliance times “after the Revision 3 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance times after the effective date of this AD.
(2) The Condition column of Paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, refers to airplanes in certain configurations as of the “issue date of Revision 3 of this service bulletin.” However, this AD applies to airplanes in the specified configurations as of the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where SASB 737-53-1187 R3 specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or work instructions, before further flight, repair or perform the work instructions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
(4) For airplanes on which an operator has a record that a skin panel was replaced with a production skin panel before 53,000 total flight cycles: At the applicable time for the next inspection as specified in tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Perform inspections and applicable corrective actions using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
(1) For airplanes with a time-limited repair installed as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007: At the applicable times specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 4 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3.
(ii) Make the time-limited repair permanent; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
(2) For airplanes with a time-limited repair installed as specified in SASB 737-53-1187 R3: At the applicable times specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as provided by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) Do the applicable inspections to detect missing or loose fasteners and any disbonding or cracking of bonded doublers; and do all applicable corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable intervals specified in table 5 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3.
(ii) Make the time-limited repair permanent; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Accomplishing the permanent repair required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this AD for the permanently repaired area only.
For airplanes with an existing time-limited repair that was made permanent as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007: At the applicable time specified in table 6 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Modify the existing permanent repair; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with Part 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, except as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
Table 7 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of SASB 737-53-1187 R3, specifies post-repair airworthiness limitation inspections in compliance with 14 CFR 25.571(a)(3) at the repaired locations, which support compliance with 14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(b)(2). As airworthiness limitations, these inspections are required by maintenance and operational rules. It is therefore unnecessary to mandate them in this AD. Deviations from these inspections require FAA approval, but do not require an alternative method of compliance.
At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (1)(2) of this AD: Replace the applicable skin panels, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of SASB 737-53-1187 R3. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Doing the skin panel replacement required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraphs (g), (i), and (j) of this AD for that skin panel only, provided the skin panel replacement was done with a production skin panel after 53,000 total flight cycles, or with the skin panel replacement kit (S-20 to S-25 (left and right)) specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187.
(1) Before 60,000 total flight cycles, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
(2) Within 6,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, but not before 53,000 total flight cycles.
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-21-01, Amendment 39-16038 (74 FR 52395, October 13, 2009) (“AD 2009-21-01”).
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007, except as required by paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 2, dated May 9, 2007, was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-21-01.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before November 17, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-21-01) using Part III of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) AMOCs approved for repairs for AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(5) Except as specified in paragraph (n)(6) of this AD, AMOCs approved for previous modifications done as optional terminating action for AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD provided the previous modification was done after the airplane had accumulated 53,000 total flight cycles or more.
(6) AMOCs approved for previous modifications done as optional terminating action for AD 2009-21-01 are approved as AMOCs for the modification required by paragraph (l) of this AD provided the skin modification replacement is done using the skin panel kit specified Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1187.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Jennifer Tsakoumakis, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5264; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3) and (p)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1187, Revision 3, dated July 10, 2015.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone: 562-797-1717; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “Commission”) is amending the recordkeeping obligations set forth in Commission regulations along with corresponding technical changes to certain provisions regarding retention of oral communications and record retention requirements applicable to swap dealers and major swap participants, respectively. The amendments modernize and make technology neutral the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept, as well as rationalize the rule text for ease of understanding for those persons required to keep records pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (the “CEA” or “Act”) and regulations promulgated by the Commission thereunder. The amendments do not alter any existing requirements regarding the types of regulatory records to be inspected, produced, and maintained set forth in other Commission regulations.
The effective date for this final rule is August 28, 2017.
Eileen T. Flaherty, Director, (202) 418-5326,
In response to petitions for rulemaking from various industry groups requesting amendments to § 1.31, the Commission published in the
Among other proposed changes requested in the petitions for rulemaking, the Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement for a records entity to: (1) Keep electronic regulatory records in their native file format (
The Commission received sixteen comment letters on the Proposal from a wide range of records entities, including registrants, registered entities and other persons subject to the Commission's recordkeeping obligations set forth in § 1.31.
The Commission has considered the comments it received in response to the Proposal and is adopting the rule amendments as proposed, with the following exceptions: (1) Revising the definition of “regulatory records” in § 1.31(a); (2) deleting proposed § 1.31(b) regarding the requirement for a records entity to establish, maintain, and implement written policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with all obligations under § 1.31; (3) amending § 1.31(c) to limit the retention period for pre- trade communications required by § 23.202(a)(1) and § 23.202(b)(1)-(3) to five years from the date the communication was created; (4) deleting from § 1.31(d)(2)(i) the requirement that a records entity retain systems that maintain the “chain of custody elements” of any electronic regulatory record; and (5) re-lettering § 1.31(c)-(f) to account for the deletion of proposed § 1.31(b). Specific provisions of the final rules are addressed below.
The Commission proposed to define in § 1.31(a) the terms “electronic regulatory records,” “records entity,” and “regulatory records” as used elsewhere in the section.
The Commission received several comments regarding the proposed definition of “records entity” to be any person required by the Act or Commission regulations to keep regulatory records. A few commenters requested that the Commission exclude from the definition of “records entity” those persons that are neither registrants nor registered entities.
Regarding the definition of “regulatory records,” the Commission specifically requested comment whether the term “metadata”—or data about data—should be defined. The Commission recognized in the Proposal that the term metadata may be generally understood by practitioners notwithstanding a lack of universal agreement on an exact definition. A majority of commenters on the issue agreed that metadata need not be defined at this time as that would be inconsistent with the Commission's stated goal to provide for less-prescriptive recordkeeping obligations.
The Commission notes that it and other federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), have been requesting metadata in conjunction with information requests to industry for more than five years through standardized data delivery standards.
The Commission further noted in the Proposal that the proposed definition of “regulatory records” would more clearly state the existing requirement for each records entity to maintain a regulatory record and any subsequent versions of such record. Multiple commenters questioned whether the revised language was, in fact, imposing a new requirement to maintain versions of a regulatory record before it becomes in fact a regulatory record (
As noted in the Proposal this is the existing standard in § 1.31. Under existing § 1.31(b)(1)(ii)(A) electronic records are required to be preserved exclusively in a non-rewritable, non-erasable format. This provision was designed to ensure the “trustworthiness of documents that may be relied upon by the Commission in conducting investigations and entered into evidence in administrative and judicial proceedings.”
Finally, another commenter also asserted that retaining all versions of a regulatory record is redundant and creates additional opportunities for data theft or loss.
The Commission proposed to amend § 1.31(b) to require each records entity to establish, maintain, and implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the records entity complies with its obligations under Regulation 1.31. As proposed, the written policies and procedures would provide for, without limitation, appropriate training of officers and personnel of the records entity regarding their responsibility for ensuring compliance with the obligations of the records entity under § 1.31, and regular monitoring of such compliance.
Without an explanation of the differences, several commenters disagreed with the Commission that the proposed requirement for written policies and procedures is consistent with the existing § 1.31(b)(3) requirement for anyone using electronic storage media to develop and maintain written operational procedures and controls (
Having considered these comments, the Commission has determined not to adopt the written policies and procedures requirement for records entities set forth in proposed § 1.31(b). The final rule, as adopted, sets forth the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept, the retention period for various types of regulatory records, and the standards for production of regulatory records to the Commission. Given these clearly defined obligations, the Commission agrees with commenters that the requirement for written policies and procedures is unnecessary. As the Commission noted in the Proposal, the obligation to satisfy the requirements
The Commission proposed to amend § 1.31(c)(re-lettered as § 1.31(b) in the final rule) to re-state and clarify the existing retention period requirements for categories of regulatory records set forth in existing § 1.31(a), including the requirement that certain records associated with a swap be retained for the duration of the swap plus five years. The Commission also proposed to distinguish between electronic regulatory records and those records exclusively created and maintained on paper by requiring a records entity to keep electronic regulatory records readily accessible for the duration of the required record keeping period, and not just for the first two years. The Commission noted that this standard is consistent with the SEC's standard for certain intermediaries.
Two commenters
The Commission recognizes the increased burden and risk of a longer retention period as pointed out by commenters, and, having considered such increased burden and risk in light of the nature of the affected regulatory records, has determined to require retention of electronic communications specified in § 23.202(a)(1) and § 23.202(b)(1)-(3) only for a period of five years from the date of creation of the required record. The Commission notes that these are records of pre-execution communications and, as such, are likely to be useful for regulatory oversight purposes for a shorter length of time than records regarding execution of transactions or records of events that effect transactions following execution.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Commission is not changing the retention period for execution trade information under § 23.202(a)(2), post-execution trade information under § 23.202(a)(3), the ledgers required under § 23.202(a)(4), or the daily trading records for related cash and forward transactions in § 23.202(b)(4)-(7). However, as previously stated, the Commission will continue to monitor changes in information technology and consider whether the recordkeeping regulation should be adjusted to reflect technological developments.
Certain commenters requested clarification whether the requirements as adopted apply to existing records.
The Commission proposed to adopt § 1.31(d) (re-lettered as § 1.31(c) in final rule) to describe recordkeeping requirements regarding the form and manner in which regulatory records are retained by records entities. Consistent with the Commission's emphasis on a less-prescriptive, principles-based approach, proposed § 1.31(d)(1) would rephrase the existing requirements in the form of a general standard for each records entity to retain all regulatory records in a form and manner necessary to ensure the records' and recordkeeping systems' authenticity and reliability. The Commission proposed to adopt § 1.31(d)(2) to set forth additional controls for records entities retaining electronic regulatory records. The Commission emphasized in the Proposal that the proposed regulatory text does not create new requirements, but rather updates the existing requirements so that they are set out in a way that appropriately reflects technological advancements and changes to recordkeeping methods since the prior amendments of § 1.31 in 1999.
Various commenters proposed technical amendments to proposed § 1.31(d)(2). Multiple commenters
One commenter also requested that the Commission amend proposed § 1.31(d)(2)(ii) to incorporate existing business continuity planning regulations in lieu of the proposed language: “in the event of an emergency or other disruption of the records entity's electronic record retention systems[.]”
The same commenter also requested that the Commission amend the proposed records inventory requirement in new § 1.31(c)(2)(iii) to not require system descriptions and information necessary for accessing or producing electronic regulatory records because introducing concepts related to access and production of records in this section is potentially confusing.
Another commenter requested that the Commission delete from proposed § 1.31(d)(2)(i) the language “and to monitor compliance with the Act and Commission regulations in this Chapter” because such an “obligation to comply would not normally be embodied in a recordkeeping system.”
Another commenter objected to the proposed amendments that would impose the requirements of proposed § 1.31(d) (re-lettered as § 1.31(c) in the final rule) on commercial end-users that happen to be records entities, including the requirements that “each records entity maintaining electronic regulatory records shall establish appropriate systems and controls that ensure the authenticity and reliability of electronic regulatory records[.]”
The Commission declines to revise the rule in response to this comment because, as noted previously, § 1.31(d) (re-lettered as § 1.31(c) in the final rule) does not impose any new recordkeeping requirements on any records entity, including those that are commercial end-users. Rather, the final rule merely modernizes and makes technology neutral the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept. Further, the final rule is clear that it does not override other methods of maintaining records that may be specified elsewhere in the Act or other Commission regulations. Thus, commercial end-users that are records entities, for example, may continue to maintain records in accordance with their current practices if such are permitted by the Act, Commission regulations, or existing relief or guidance. Finally, as described above, the final rule removes several obligations regarding the form and manner in which regulatory records must be kept that should lessen the compliance costs associated with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in § 1.31 generally.
In response to a specific question in the Proposal as to whether the Commission should routinely publish guidelines regarding the technical standards for electronic regulatory records, one commenter argued that publication of such standards likely would result in increased cost and devotion of technical resources to ensure compliance with any changing standards.
Regarding the form and manner of retention of electronic regulatory records, one commenter requested confirmation that the specific means of electronic storage that the commenter employs is an acceptable means for storing electronic regulatory records.
With respect to the effective date of these regulations, a few commenters requested a three- or six-month phase-in period for compliance.
The Commission proposed to adopt new § 1.31(e) (re-lettered as § 1.31(d) in the final rule) to re-state and clarify the right of inspection of the Commission and the United States Department of Justice in existing § 1.31(a)(1). One commenter requested that the Commission engage in a dialogue with industry to address challenges presented by the production requirements of § 1.31, including the scope of what is subject to a production request and who may make such a request.
The Commission believes that the proposed amendment to § 1.31(e) does not alter the existing right of inspection regarding regulatory records and notes that attorney-client protections are addressed elsewhere in federal and state law.
Although the Commission stated that the Proposal was limited to amendments to § 1.31 and related technical amendments, the Commission received several comments regarding matters outside the scope of the Proposal, as discussed below.
The petitioners for rulemaking restated their request from their original petition that the Commission adopt amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's regulations regarding certain recordkeeping requirements applicable to commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisors.
Another commenter
Finally, another commenter
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”)
As discussed above, because the final rule relates to most recordkeeping obligations under the Act and the Commission's regulations, it may affect the full spectrum of Commission registrants, all persons required to register but not registered with the Commission, and certain persons that are neither registered nor required to register with the Commission. The Commission has previously determined that certain registrants are not small entities for purposes of the RFA and, therefore, the requirements of the RFA do not apply to those entities.
As discussed in the Proposal, the final rule generally updates and simplifies existing Commission regulation 1.31 with new provisions that maintain the ability of the Commission to examine and inspect regulatory records. It accomplishes this by deleting outdated terms and revising provisions to reflect advances in information technology, allowing records entities to benefit from evolving technological developments while maintaining necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the recordkeeping process. It also reduces the retention period for certain regulatory records related to swaps and related cash and forward transactions, as discussed above.
The Commission believed that the Proposal would impose only limited additional costs on small entities related to the requirement that they establish written recordkeeping policies and procedures. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission has been persuaded to not require such written recordkeeping policies and procedures.
As a result, the final rule is not expected to impose any new burdens on market participants. The Commission
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Commission believes that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Acting Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the final rule being published today by this
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”)
As discussed above, the Proposal would have replaced the existing audit system requirements in Commission regulation 1.31 with a requirement that records entities establish written recordkeeping policies and procedures. Such changes would have resulted in revisions to “Adaptation of Regulations to Incorporate Swaps-Records of Transactions, OMB control number 3038-0090”. Because the Commission has been persuaded not to require such written recordkeeping policies and procedures, the Commission will not be modifying this OMB control number to reflect the addition of the proposed recordkeeping policies and procedures requirement. As discussed in the Proposal, however, the Commission will submit to OMB revisions to OMB control number 3038-0090 to reflect the final rule's removal of the audit system requirements in current Commission regulation 1.31.
In the Proposal, the Commission invited the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of the information collection requirements discussed therein, including that the only collection of information within the meaning of the PRA added or modified by the Proposal would be in respect of the proposed, but not adopted, requirement that records entities establish recordkeeping policies and procedures. The Commission did not receive any such comments.
Section 15(a) of the Act
As discussed above in relation to the RFA, the Proposal generally updates and simplifies existing Commission regulation 1.31 by deleting outdated terms and revising provisions to reflect advances in information technology while safeguarding the reliability of the recordkeeping process. The Commission believes that the final rule does not impose any additional costs on records entities.
The Commission is committed to reviewing its regulations to ensure they keep pace with technological developments and industry trends, and reduce regulatory burden. The Commission believes that the final rule will allow records entities to benefit from evolving technology while maintaining necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the recordkeeping process. By deleting outdated terms and revising provisions to reflect advances in information technology, the final rule will allow records entities to utilize a wider range of currently available technology than previously allowed and remove or modify requirements that the Commission believes are now obsolete (
Moreover, the Commission expects that the added flexibility provided by the final rule will encourage records entities to utilize electronic storage rather than maintain paper regulatory records. The Commission expects that this conversion will benefit the Commission, the Department of Justice, and the commodity interest industry, generally, by making the universe of regulatory records more accessible and searchable.
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders. CEA Section 15(a) further specifies that the costs and benefits shall be evaluated in light of five broad areas of market and public concern: (i) Protection of market participants and the public; (ii) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets; (iii) price discovery; (iv) sound risk management practices; and (v) other public interest considerations.
Because the final rule does not alter any existing requirements regarding the type of regulatory records to be produced and maintained, but, rather, modernizes and makes technology neutral the form and manner in which certain regulatory records must be kept the Commission believes that the final rule will continue to protect the public by maintaining necessary safeguards to ensure the reliability of the recordkeeping process while allowing records entities to benefit from evolving technology.
As discussed above, the final rule, by providing additional flexibility to records entities to electronically store their regulatory records, may increase resource allocation efficiency by improving the way in which such records are maintained. Apart from that,
The Commission believes that the final rule may increase confidence and participation in the markets by lowering costs for records entities and by encouraging the electronic storage of regulatory records, allowing such records to be more easily accessed and searched. Nevertheless, the Commission does not anticipate a significant increase in liquidity or a significant improvement in price discovery as a result of the final rule.
The Commission does not believe that the final rule will have any significant impact on sound financial risk management practices because this rulemaking only affects recordkeeping and not how market participants conduct financial risk management. The Commission believes that the final rule may result in minor improvements to operational risk management because, as noted above, it will provide additional flexibility to records entities to electronically store their regulatory records.
The Commission has not identified any additional public interest considerations.
The Commission invited public comment on its cost-benefit considerations in the Proposal, including the Section 15(a) factors described above. Commenters were invited to submit with their comment letters any data or other information that they had that quantified or qualified the costs and benefits of the Proposal. The Commission received a number of comments on the Proposal as described above; however, none of the persons who commented on the Proposal submitted any data or other information that quantified or qualified the costs and benefits of the Proposal. Nevertheless, in response to certain comments on the Proposal, and to reduce the costs of the final rule on records entities, the Commission has been persuaded not to require in the final rule the written recordkeeping policies and procedures that had been proposed in § 1.31(b) because the alternative suggested by commenters achieves all the recordkeeping objectives of the Commission.
Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Commodity futures, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR chapter I as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 6r, 6s, 7, 7a-1, 7a-2, 7b, 7b-3, 8, 9, 10a, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a-1, 16, 16a, 19, 21, 23, and 24 (2012).
(a)
(i) Any data necessary to access, search, or display any such books and records; and
(ii) All data produced and stored electronically describing how and when such books and records were created, formatted, or modified.
(b)
(1) A records entity shall keep regulatory records of any swap or related cash or forward transaction (as defined in § 23.200(i) of this chapter), other than regulatory records required by § 23.202(a)(1) and (b)(1)-(3) of this chapter, from the date the regulatory record was created until the termination, maturity, expiration, transfer, assignment, or novation date of the transaction and for a period of not less than five years after such date.
(2) A records entity that is required to retain oral communications, shall keep regulatory records of oral communications for a period of not less than one year from the date of such communication.
(3) A records entity shall keep each regulatory record other than the records described in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section for a period of not less than five years from the date on which the record was created.
(4) A records entity shall keep regulatory records exclusively created and maintained on paper readily accessible for no less than two years. A records entity shall keep electronic regulatory records readily accessible for the duration of the required record keeping period.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Systems that maintain the security, signature, and data as necessary to ensure the authenticity of the information contained in electronic regulatory records and to monitor compliance with the Act and Commission regulations in this chapter;
(ii) Systems that ensure the records entity is able to produce electronic regulatory records in accordance with this section, and ensure the availability of such regulatory records in the event of an emergency or other disruption of the records entity's electronic record retention systems; and
(iii) The creation and maintenance of an up-to-date inventory that identifies and describes each system that maintains information necessary for accessing or producing electronic regulatory records.
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(ii) A records entity must produce such regulatory records in the form and medium requested promptly, upon request, unless otherwise directed by the Commission representative.
(4)
(a) * * *
(5)
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.
Section 23.160 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 2(i); Sec. 721(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1641 (2010).
The revisions to read as follows:
(b)
(2) [Reserved]
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Acting Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioner Bowen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) is amending its regulations and forms to enhance the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and to make related changes to clarify staff authority to administer the whistleblower program. The Commission also is making appropriate rule amendments to implement its reinterpretation of the Commission's anti-retaliation authority.
This final rule is effective July 31, 2017.
Anthony Hays, Counsel, (202) 418-5584,
The Commission is amending its rules in §§ 165.1 through 165.19 and appendix A, and adopting new rule § 165.20 and appendix B as well as amending Forms TCR (“Tip, Complaint or Referral”) and WB-APP (“Application for Award for Original Information Provided Pursuant to Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act”).
In 2011, the Commission adopted its part 165 regulations, which implement Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. 26, by establishing a regulatory framework for the whistleblower program.
The award amount must be between 10 and 30 percent of the amount of monetary sanctions collected in a Covered Action or a Related Action and is paid from the CFTC Customer Protection Fund. The Commission has discretion regarding the amount of an award based on the significance of the information, the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower, and other criteria.
Since the whistleblower program was established in 2011, the need for certain improvements has become apparent. In order to address that need the Commission proposed amendments to the part 165 rules (“Proposal”).
The Commission received seven comment letters in response to the Proposal. Most of the comment letters focused on specific aspects of the proposed rule amendments and made targeted recommendations and suggestions. Three of the comment letters were from private individuals, two were from law firms with whistleblower practices, and two were from whistleblower advocacy groups.
The Commission is adopting the amendments to its part 165 whistleblower rules as set forth in the Proposed Rules with certain changes made in response to public comments. The amendments and the public comments relevant to each amendment are discussed below.
The Commission proposed targeted changes to the rules relating to consideration of an award. The Commission proposed to revise Rule 165.5 to make clear that a claimant may receive an award in a Covered Action, in a Related Action, or both. Also in Rule 165.5, the Commission proposed to make clear that a claimant may be eligible for an award by providing the Commission original information without being the original source of the information, and the Commission provided the public with notice that the Commission has discretion to waive its procedural rules based upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
In addition, the Commission proposed to revise the definition of “original source” in Rule 165.2(l) to extend the timeframe from 120 to 180 days that a whistleblower has to file a Form TCR pursuant to Rule 165.3 after previously providing the same information to Congress, any other federal or state authority, a registered entity, a registered futures association, a self-regulatory organization, or to any of the persons described in Rule 165.2(g)(4) and (5).
The Commission received several comments regarding the proposed changes to the requirements for consideration of an award.
Proposed Rule 165.5(b) removed being the original source of information received by the Commission from the eligibility criteria for an award. The Commission received one comment which endorsed this approach.
The Commission received two comments regarding the Commission's proposal to amend Rule 165.5(c) to allow the Commission to waive procedural requirements in extraordinary circumstances. Both commenters supported the proposed change to this rule.
Proposed Rule 165.2(l) extended the deadline from 120 to 180 days that a whistleblower has to make a submission to the Commission and retain status as the original source of information after first submitting the information to Congress, any other federal or state authority, a registered entity, a registered futures association, a self-regulatory organization, or to any of the persons described in paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) of Rule 165.2 to be eligible for an award. The Commission received two comments supporting this proposed change.
The other commenter agreed that the period of eligibility should be lengthened to 180 days but urged the Commission to state that the 180-day period refers only to the whistleblower's “look back” eligibility to retain original source status and that whistleblowers will not lose that status or eligibility for an award if they perfect their submission to the Commission after 180 days elapse. This commenter also urged the Commission to revise Rule 165.2(l)(2) to include individuals who first provide information to foreign governments or self-regulatory authorities because of the global nature of the commodities markets and the increasing number of international whistleblowers participating in the Dodd-Frank whistleblower programs. This commenter went on to state that there is no persuasive policy reason for excluding such persons from original source status because some of the Commission's recent enforcement cases were brought with the cooperation of foreign authorities and the proposed rules allow for whistleblower awards based on Related Actions by certain foreign authorities. Hence, this commenter argued that if whistleblowers may receive awards based on Related Actions undertaken by foreign authorities, those whistleblowers should be entitled to original source eligibility in instances where they report to a foreign authority prior to reporting to the Commission.
The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed revision in Rule 165.5(a)(3) that makes clear that a claimant may receive an award in a Covered Action, in a Related Action, or both and, accordingly, is adopting the amendment as proposed.
With respect to the proposed revision to Rule 165.5(b), the Commission believes that removing the requirement that the whistleblower be the original source of information received by the Commission is consistent with Section 23(b)(1), and will prevent the potential situation where a claimant reports internally before providing information to the Commission and the employer self-reports the violation of the CEA, thereby foreclosing the claimant's eligibility for an award because the employer is the “original source” of the information. The Commission is adopting this amendment as proposed.
The Commission has also decided to adopt as proposed Rule 165.5(c), which clarifies that the Commission may waive any procedural requirements upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
After consideration of the comments on Rule 165.2(l), the Commission has decided to adopt the rule with one change, a conforming change and a minor correction. The Commission is adding foreign futures authorities
The Commission also clarifies that the 180-day timeframe in Rule 165.2(l)(2) relates only to the date on which the Commission will consider a whistleblower's original information to have been received. Filing a Form TCR more than 180 days after reporting information to another authority does not strip a whistleblower of original source status or render a whistleblower ineligible for an award. Also, the Commission is amending Rule 165.2(i)(3) to extend the time from 120 to 180 days in order to conform that rule to the extension of the timeframe in Rule 165.2(1)(2).
The Commission proposed several changes to the award claims review process under Rule 165.7 to better define and specify each step in the process. Those steps were spelled out in proposed new paragraphs (f) through (l), along with new provisions regarding withdrawing award applications in proposed paragraph (d) and disposition of claims that do not relate to Notices of Covered Actions (“NCAs”) or final judgments in Related Actions in proposed new paragraph (e). The proposed amendments would establish a review process similar to that established under the SEC's whistleblower rules.
Proposed Rule 165.7(d) would permit a claimant to withdraw an award application at any point in the review process by submitting a written request to the Whistleblower Office.
Proposed Rule 165.7(e) addressed the Commission's experience of receiving a number of Form WB-APPs that appear to be unrelated to NCAs or final judgments in Related Actions as well as Form WB-APPs that do not relate to a previously filed Form TCR. In order to reduce the administrative burden on the Commission, the Commission proposed that such facially ineligible claims primarily be handled by the Whistleblower Office. The Whistleblower Office would notify the claimant of the deficiencies in the Form WB-APP and provide an opportunity for the claimant to correct the deficiencies or withdraw the claim before the finalization of the denial of the claim. If the claimant does not correct the deficiencies or withdraw the claim, the Whistleblower Office would notify the Claims Review Staff of the proposed denial, which would be called a Proposed Final Disposition, and any member of the Claims Review Staff would have the opportunity to request review of the proposed denial. If no member of the Claims Review Staff requests review, the Proposed Final Disposition would become the final order of the Commission. If a member of the Claims Review Staff requests review, the Claims Review Staff would review the record for the denial and either remand to the Whistleblower Office for further action or issue a final order of the Commission, which consists of the proposed denial.
In Rule 165.7(f), the Commission proposed that the Claims Review Staff would evaluate all timely award applications submitted on a Form WB-APP in response to the NCA or a final judgment in a Related Action. During the review process, the Whistleblower Office may require that claimants provide additional information, explanation, or assistance as set forth in Rule 165.5(b)(3). For award claims on Related Actions, as proposed in Rule 165.7(f), the Whistleblower Office may request additional information from the claimant to demonstrate that the
In Rule 165.7(g)(1), the Commission proposed that following the initial evaluation by the Claims Review Staff, the Claims Review Staff would issue a Preliminary Determination setting forth a preliminary assessment as to whether the claim should be granted or denied and, if granted, setting forth the proposed award percentage amount. The Whistleblower Office would send a copy of the Preliminary Determination to the claimant. The proposed amendments would allow a claimant the opportunity to contest the Preliminary Determination.
In Rule 165.7(g)(2), the Commission proposed that the claimant could take any of the following steps in response to a Preliminary Determination:
• Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, the claimant may request that the Whistleblower Office make available for the claimant's review the materials that formed the basis of the Claim Review Staff's Preliminary Determination.
• Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, or if a request to review materials is made, then within sixty (60) days of the Whistleblower Office making those materials available for the claimant's review, a claimant may submit a written response setting forth the grounds for the claimant's objection to either the denial of an award or the proposed amount of an award. The claimant may also include documentation or other evidentiary support for the grounds advanced in any response, and request a meeting with the Whistleblower Office. However, such meetings would not be required. The Whistleblower Office may in its sole discretion decline the request.
Proposed Rule 165.7(h) provides that if a claimant fails to submit a timely response under new Rule 165.7(g), then a Preliminary Determination denying an award becomes the Final Order of the Commission and constitutes a failure to exhaust the claimant's administrative remedies. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies would prohibit the claimant from pursuing judicial review.
If the claimant fails to contest a Preliminary Determination recommending an award, the Preliminary Determination would be treated as a Proposed Final Determination, which would make it subject to Commission review under proposed Rule 165.7(j).
Proposed Rule 165.7(i) describes the procedure in cases where a claimant submits a timely response under proposed Rule 165.7(g). In such cases, the Claims Review Staff would consider the issues raised in the claimant's response, along with any supporting documentation that the claimant provided, and prepare a Proposed Final Determination.
In Rule 165.7(j), the Commission proposed that when there is a Proposed Final Determination, the Whistleblower Office would notify the Commission of the Proposed Final Determination. Within thirty (30) days of that notification, any Commissioner may request Commission review of the Proposed Final Determination. If no Commissioner makes such a request, the Proposed Final Determination would become the Commission's Final Order. If a Commissioner does request review, the Commission would review the record that the Claims Review Staff relied upon in reaching its determination. On the basis of its review of that record, the Commission would issue its Final Order, which the Office of the Secretariat would then serve on the claimant. In reaching their decisions, the Commission and Claims Review Staff would only consider information in the record.
The Office of General Counsel would review both preliminary and proposed final determinations prior to issuance, and no such determination may be issued without the Office of General Counsel's determination of legal sufficiency.
In Rule 165.15(a)(2), the Commission proposed that the Enforcement Director, in consultation with the Executive Director, would designate a minimum of three and a maximum of five staff from the Division of Enforcement or other Commission Offices or Divisions to serve on the Claims Review Staff, either on a case-by-case basis or for fixed periods. At least one person from outside the Division of Enforcement would be included on the Claims Review Staff at all times. The Claims Review Staff would be composed only of persons who have not had direct involvement with the underlying enforcement action. Due to the Office of General Counsel's role in the review process, the Commission believes it is appropriate to exclude staff from that Office from serving as Claims Review Staff.
The Commission received two generally supportive comments regarding the proposed additions and changes to the award review process.
After consideration of the comments received, the Commission has decided to adopt Rule 165.7 as proposed. The Commission anticipates that these revisions will provide the public and claimants with greater transparency in the awards claim review process and enhance the expeditious and fair administration of the program. The Commission declines a commenter's request that the Commission publish NCAs for Related Actions. The Commission believes that doing so would be unworkable and burdensome for the Commission. Publishing NCAs on all criminal and civil actions that may become Related Actions would require staff to track, monitor, and report on many actions that are not Commission actions. Rule 165.7(b)(3) clearly describes how and when actions brought by other agencies become Related Actions and when a claimant must file a Form WB-APP with the Commission to apply for an award in connection with these actions. It is the claimant's responsibility to track the outcome of a Related Action if the claimant has an interest in pursuing an award application based on that Related Action.
In response to the comment on the nature of the Claims Review staff, the Commission notes that the Claims Review Staff will be drawn from the Commission's Divisions and Offices, other than the Office of General Counsel. As detailed in Rule 165.7, the role of Claims Review Staff is primarily
For award claims on Related Actions, the Commission proposed to amend Rule 165.11 to permit claimants who are eligible to receive an award in a covered judicial or administrative action to also receive an award based on the monetary sanctions that are collected from a final judgment in a Related Action. The exception would be that the Commission would not make an award to a claimant for a Related Action if the claimant has been granted an award by the SEC for the same action under the SEC's whistleblower program. This would prevent a claimant from “double dipping” and receiving more than one award for the same action. Similarly, if the SEC has previously denied an award to a claimant in a Related Action, the claimant would be precluded from relitigating any issues before the Commission that the SEC resolved against the claimant as part of the SEC's award denial. The limitations on obtaining an award for both Covered Actions and final judgments in Related Actions are similar to those imposed by the SEC in its whistleblower program.
A Related Action under Rule 165.2(m) is based on the original information voluntarily submitted by a whistleblower to the Commission that led to the successful enforcement of a Commission action, and therefore, an action may only become a Related Action after there is a successful Commission action. The Commission accordingly proposed revisions to clarify timing requirements for filing whistleblower award claims regarding Related Actions. The proposed revisions were intended to clarify that, except in the circumstances described in proposed Rule 165.7(b)(3)(ii), award claims for a Related Action shall be filed within 90 days after an action meets the definition of Related Action if the order in the Related Action was issued prior to the successful enforcement of a Commission action. The proposed revisions also clarify that award claims for a Related Action and in response to a Notice of Covered Action may be submitted on the same Form WB-APP in certain circumstances.
The Commission received one comment regarding Proposed Rule 165.11. The commenter expressed some confusion as to whether the information provided by a whistleblower must be presented to the Commission prior to presenting the information to another authority in order for a whistleblower to be eligible for an award in a Related Action.
The Commission has decided to adopt Rule 165.11 as proposed. The Commission also takes this opportunity to clarify that a whistleblower retains eligibility under Rule 165.11, Rule 165.5, and Rule 165.2(l) for an award based on information provided by the whistleblower to another authority prior to the time that the whistleblower provided the information to the Commission.
The Commission proposed to amend Rule 165.10(a) to identify additional items that may be included in the contents of record for award claims as a result of the Commission's proposal to amend Rule 165.11 to permit claimants who are eligible to receive an award in a covered judicial or administrative action to also receive an award based on the monetary sanctions that are collected from a final judgment in a Related Action. For Related Actions, any documents or materials, including sworn declarations from third parties, that are received or obtained by the Whistleblower Office to assist the Commission in resolving the claimant's award application, including information relating to the claimant's eligibility, may be included in the record. In addition, any information provided to the Commission by the entity bringing the Related Action that has been authorized by the entity for sharing with the claimant may be part of the record. Neither of these types of information may be relied upon by the Commission or the Claims Review Staff in making a decision on a whistleblower award claim or included in the contents of the record if the entity did not authorize the Commission to share the information with the claimant.
The Commission also proposed revisions to Rules 165.10(b) and 165.13(b) to clarify that the record on appeal shall not include any pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials that are prepared to assist the Commission or Claims Review Staff in deciding a claim.
The Commission received one comment regarding the record for award determinations and appeals. This commenter strongly urged the Commission to further revise Proposed Rules 165.10 and 165.13 to not categorically exclude from the record pre-decisional and internal deliberative process materials prepared to assist the Commission in award determinations, and suggested that the Commission would be denying whistleblowers a meaningful right to appeal by defining by rule what constitutes the record.
Following consideration of the comments received, the Commission has decided to adopt the revisions to Rules 165.10(a) and (b) and 165.13(b) as proposed. The Commission disagrees with the comment that the Commission defining by rule what constitutes the record denies a claimant a meaningful right to appeal award determinations.
The Commission proposed to directly assign responsibilities for administering the program by rule rather than by delegation in Rule 165.15 in light of the proposed changes to the claims review process. Since 2013, the Whistleblower Office has been located within the Division of Enforcement. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to assign overall responsibility for administering the whistleblower program to the Director of the Division of Enforcement. The Commission notes that this approach is consistent with the SEC's practice.
The Commission also proposed to directly assign responsibility to Claims Review Staff for the issuance of Preliminary Determinations and Proposed Final Determinations, and issuance of Proposed Final Dispositions to the WBO. In this connection, the Commission proposed, again consistent with the SEC's practice, that no member of the Claims Review Staff can have had any direct involvement in the underlying enforcement case.
The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed changes to the authority to administer the whistleblower program.
The Commission has decided to adopt the revisions to the authority to administer the program as proposed.
Rule 165.4 implements the confidentiality protections for whistleblower identifying information contained in Section 23(h)(2). In proposed Rule 165.15(a)(3), the Commission proposed to authorize the Director of the Division of Enforcement to act on its behalf to disclose whistleblower identifying information as permitted by Section 23(h)(2)(C) and Rule 165.4(a)(2) and (3). The Commission stated in the Proposal that it expects the Director of Enforcement to exercise this discretion to release such sensitive information in a manner consistent with, and when deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish, the customer protection and law enforcement goals of the whistleblower program. The Commission said in the Proposal that it believes that this delegation of authority will increase investor protection by facilitating administration of the whistleblower program as well as investigations and actions by those agencies and authorities that are eligible to receive whistleblower identifying information under Section 23(h)(2)(C) and Rule 165.4. Any agency or authority that receives whistleblower identifying information is bound by the same confidentiality requirements as those applicable to the Commission under Section 23(h)(2)(A) and such sharing of information does not change the confidential nature of the information. Certain information provided to other agencies or authorities is also protected from disclosure under Section 8 of the CEA. The Commission also proposed to revise a question in the Form TCR, question E.8, seeking consent from whistleblowers to share their information with other authorities.
The Commission received one comment opposing the proposed changes to Rule 165.4 and Form TCR. The commenter viewed the proposed changes as a “loosening” of the confidentiality of a whistleblower's identity. In addition, the commenter suggested that: (1) A whistleblower should be entitled to know the other agencies with which identifying information is shared; (2) the scope of the proposal on sharing the whistleblower's identifying information is too broad; and, (3) the Commission does not have the ability to monitor or enforce confidential treatment of the whistleblower's identifying information once it has been shared with other agencies. The commenter also suggested that the whistleblower should be consulted by the Commission prior to any sharing of the whistleblower's identifying information with other agencies and provided the opportunity to prevent such sharing because the whistleblower may have reported to the Commission rather than to another authority as the result of previous encounters with personnel at other agencies that left the whistleblower with less trust or confidence in those agencies. Finally, the commenter argued that the sharing of information with self-regulatory organizations is too broad because the term “self-regulatory organization” is not properly defined in the rules.
After consideration of the comment received, the Commission is adopting Rule 165.4(a)(2) as proposed, with a minor change. Section 23(h)(2)(C) provides the Commission with the authority to share all information provided by the whistleblower with the authorities listed in that section without the consent or consultation of the whistleblower, subject to the limitation that providing the whistleblower's identifying information is necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of the CEA and protect customers. Reassigning the authority to make the decision to disclose whistleblower identifying information in a manner permitted by Section 23(h)(2)(C) from the Director of the Whistleblower Office to a more senior Commission official, the Director of the Division of Enforcement, is not a loosening of whistleblower identity protections. The Commission believes that this delegation of authority will increase investor protection by facilitating administration of the whistleblower program as well as investigations and actions by those agencies and authorities that are eligible to receive whistleblower identifying information under Section 23(h)(2)(C) and Rule 165.4. Section 23(h)(2)(C)(i), Rule 165.4(a)(2), and the Privacy Act Notice on Form TCR identify for whistleblowers the entities with which whistleblower identifying information may be shared. If a potential whistleblower is not comfortable with the possibility that confidential information about them may be shared with one or more of these entities, the potential whistleblower can decide not to file a Form TCR.
The Commission does not believe that Commission monitoring of the treatment of confidential whistleblower information by a receiving authority is necessary. As the commenter pointed out, receiving authorities are bound by the same confidentiality provisions as the Commission. The Commission makes sure that a receiving authority understands these limitations when it shares confidential whistleblower information with them. Further, all of the entities with which the Commission may share confidential information are experienced in handling and protecting confidential information such as whistleblower identifying information.
The Commission does not agree with the commenter's assertion that “self-
Finally, in light of the comments, the Commission also has determined to remove Question E.8 on Form TCR. The wording of this question was not consistent with the authority granted to the Commission to share whistleblower identifying information in Section 23(h)(C)(i) and the language of Rule 165.4(a)(2). The Privacy Act Notice in Form TCR puts potential whistleblowers on notice that the information that they provide to the Commission may be shared with other authorities.
In the Proposal, the Commission proposed several substantial changes to its anti-retaliation authority. The Commission proposed revisions to Rule 165.19 and appendix A, and the addition of new Rule 165.20. The Commission proposed to amend Rule 165.19 to prohibit a person from taking any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission's staff about a possible violation of the CEA, including by enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement or predispute arbitration agreement with respect to such communications. The Commission also proposed to revise its 2011 interpretation that it lacked statutory authority to bring an enforcement action against an employer that retaliated against a whistleblower. The Commission proposed that Sections 6(c), 6(d), 6b, 6c, and 23(i) of the CEA allow the Commission to pursue such violations of the Act through an enforcement action. The Commission proposed Rule 165.20 to make clear that Section 23(h)(1)(A) of the CEA, including the rules in part 165 promulgated thereunder, is enforceable in an action or proceeding brought by the Commission. Proposed Rule 165.20(c) provides that the anti-retaliation protections apply irrespective of whether a whistleblower qualifies for an award. The Commission also proposed changes to appendix A to reflect the Commission's ability to bring enforcement actions to prosecute violations of the anti-retaliation prohibition of Section 23(h)(1)(A).
The Commission received several comments regarding the proposed revisions to the anti-retaliation provisions. The Commission received one comment letter that addressed the proposed revisions to Rules 165.19(b), 165.20(b) and 165.20(c)
The comment on Rule 165.19(b) supported the proposal and noted that this change will more closely align the Commission with the SEC with respect to combating the chilling of whistleblowing by employers who require waivers of rewards in severance packages for whistleblowing.
This commenter was similarly supportive of the proposed expansion of Commission enforcement authority to address retaliation against whistleblowers. This commenter noted that more substantial penalties or a government enforcement action would be more apt to deter retaliation against whistleblowers than only a private right of action.
Both commenters asked the Commission to clarify its position on proposed Rule 165.20(c) with regard to taking enforcement action against employers that retaliate against whistleblowers prior to the whistleblower filing a Form TCR with the Commission. One commenter reiterated the point that many whistleblowers await the outcome of any internal investigation before providing the Commission any information.
Having considered the fully supportive comment on Rules 165.19(b) and 165.20(b), the Commission is adopting these rules as proposed. The Commission is also re-organizing and making minor changes to proposed Appendix A to better reflect the fact that either the Commission or a private litigant can bring an action for a violation of Section 23(h)(1)(A).
By adopting proposed Rule 165.20(b), the Commission is confirming its decision to revise its 2011 interpretation that it lacks the statutory authority to bring an enforcement case against an employer that violates the anti-retaliation prohibition in Section 23(h)(1). The 2011 interpretation failed to fully consider the statutory context of Section 23 and other CEA provisions. The 2011 interpretation does not comport with Section 23(h)(1)(A)'s prohibition against retaliation; the Commission's broad rulemaking authority under Section 23(i); and, the Commission's general authority to prosecute violations of any CEA provision (including Section 23(h)(1)(A)) as well as violations of the Commission's rules and orders under CEA sections 6(c), 6(d), 6b and 6c. Sections 6(c), 6(d), 6b and 6c of the Act empower the Commission to take actions for the violation of “any” CEA provision or rule or regulation thereunder. Although Section 23(h)(1)(B) provides a private right of action, nothing in that sub-section purports to limit the Commission's general enforcement authority or suggests that the private right of action is exclusive.
With regard to Rule 165.20(c), the Commission has decided, after considering the comments received, to adopt it with some modification. The Commission believes these revisions will further encourage whistleblowers to report internally
It would be inconsistent for the Commission to encourage internal reporting by whistleblowers and not extend to them anti-retaliation
However, the anti-retaliation protections in the CEA do not extend to all whistleblowers who report internally. Section 23(h) and Rule 165.20(a) provide that the whistleblower in a private action or the Commission in an enforcement action must be able to show that retaliation occurred because of any lawful act done by the whistleblower in providing information to the Commission in accordance with the part 165 rules, or assisting in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the Commission based upon or related to such information. The ability to make this showing will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Actions that an employer took after a whistleblower reported internally but before providing information to the Commission may be relevant to whether retaliation that is prohibited under Section 23(h)(1) occurred. For this reason, the Commission is adding language to Rule 165.20(b) to explicitly recognize this possibility.
The Commission proposed no revisions to Rule 165.14 on the payment of awards. However, the Commission received one comment regarding the payment of awards.
The Commission declines the request to amend Rule 165.14 to permit payment of any portion of an award prior to the completion of the appeals process for all whistleblower award claims arising from a NCA or Related Action.
Section 23(f)(2) provides that the Commission's determination to whom to pay an award and the amount of any award is appealable to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals. In response to an appeal from a whistleblower who received no award from the Commission or who disagreed with the amount of a Commission award, a Court of Appeals could set aside the Commission's decision to make an award to another whistleblower under the same NCA or Related Action if that award decision does not meet the applicable standard of review.
The office formerly known as the Office of Consumer Outreach has changed its name to the Office of Customer Education and Outreach. The Commission is renaming the Office in Rule 165.12. Because Rule 165.12 is a rule of the Commission's “organization, procedure or practice” the Commission need not present this revision for notice and comment.
To conform to the proposed changes to Rules 165.7 and 165.15, the Commission proposed to strike the reference to “or its delegate” in Rule 165.11 in the undesignated material before paragraph (a).
The Commission proposed to amend Rule 165.2(i)(2) concerning the definition of information that led to a successful enforcement action because it contains an erroneous cross-reference. The reference is intended to be to 165.2(l) regarding the definition of original source. The rule currently refers to paragraph (i) of this section.
The Commission proposed to make a minor change to the wording of Rule 165.3 concerning the procedures for submitting original information because it contains an erroneous reference to a two-step process. This change makes the language conform to the process previously adopted.
The Commission proposed to amend Rule 165.13(b) concerning appeals because it contains an erroneous cross-reference. The reference intended is to Rule 165.10 regarding contents of the record, rather than Rule 165.9 regarding criteria for determining award amounts.
The Commission proposed to move and include updated Form TCR and Form WB-APP in a new appendix B to part 165. The updated Form TCR and Form WB-APP include revisions that previously received information collection requirement approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
Finally, the Commission proposed to make a minor change in the wording of current § 165.7(e), in addition to designating current paragraph (e) as new paragraph (l).
The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed conforming and technical amendments.
The Commission has decided to adopt the conforming and technical amendments as proposed.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, imposes certain requirements on federal agencies (including the Commission) in connection with their conducting or sponsoring any collection of information as defined by the PRA. The Commission believes that the amendments will not impose new recordkeeping or information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the PRA.
CEA Section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
Since the basic framework of part 165 remains substantially unchanged, the Commission believes that the costs and benefits of the rule amendments and the status quo baseline (the current rule), to which the rules' costs and benefits are compared, are similar, but with certain additional benefits attendant to these amendments.
The Rule 165.4 and 165.15 amendments assign to the Director of the Division of Enforcement the authority to administer the whistleblower program and release whistleblower identifying information. Since these amendments relate solely to the Commission's allocation of authority among its staff, the Commission believes that these changes will impose no material costs on market participants or the public. At the same time, the Commission believes the protection of market participants and the public will be enhanced through a more effective and efficient deployment of staff resources.
The Rule 165.19 and 165.20 amendments clarify the anti-retaliation protections available under the Commission's whistleblower program in light of the Commission's reconsideration of its authority under Section 23(h)(1) in conjunction with Sections 6(c), 6(d), 6b, 6c, and 23(i) of the CEA. These changes remove any gap in enforcement authority between the Commission and the SEC with regard to whistleblower protections against retaliation. The Commission believes that these changes will impose no material costs on market participants or the public. The rules do not impose any new regulatory burden.
The Commission believes that price discovery and sound risk management practices will not be materially affected by the amendments. Also, the Commission has not identified any other relevant public interest considerations.
The Commission invited public comment on its cost-benefit considerations, including the Section 15(a) factors described above. Commenters were invited to submit any data or other information that they had that quantified or qualified the costs and benefits of the Proposal. None of the commenters submitted any data or other information that quantified or qualified the costs and benefits of the proposed rules, nor did they otherwise comment on the cost-benefit considerations as stated in the proposed rules.
The Commission adopts several alternatives and makes certain clarifications as suggested by commenters to the proposal:
• After consideration of the comments on Rule 165.2(l), the Commission adopts the rule with one change and a correction. The Commission is adding foreign futures authorities to the authorities and entities to which a claimant may provide information prior to filing a Form TCR and retain original source status.
• The Commission clarifies that the 180-day timeframe in Rule 165.2(l)(2) relates only to the date on which the Commission will consider a whistleblower's original information to have been received. Filing a Form TCR more than 180 days after reporting information to another authority does not strip a whistleblower of original source status or render a whistleblower ineligible for an award.
• The Commission is adopting Rule 165.4(a)(2) as proposed, with a minor change. Section 23(h)(2)(C)(i), Rule 165.4(a)(2), and the Privacy Act Notice on Form TCR identify for
• Section 23(h)(2)(C)(i)(III) limits the self-regulatory organizations with which confidential whistleblower information can be shared to those self-regulatory organizations that fit within the definition in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
• The Commission has determined to remove Question E.8 on Form TCR. The wording of this question was not consistent with the authority granted to the Commission to share whistleblower identifying information in Section 23(h)(C)(i) and the language of Rule 165.4(a)(2). The Privacy Act Notice in Form TCR puts potential whistleblowers on notice that the information that they provide to the Commission may be shared with other authorities.
• The Commission has decided to adopt Rule 165.20(c) with some modification. The anti-retaliation protections in the CEA do not extend to all whistleblowers who report internally. Actions that an employer took after a whistleblower reported internally but before providing information to the Commission may be relevant to whether retaliation that is prohibited under Section 23(h)(1) occurred. For this reason, the Commission is adding language to Rule 165.20(b) to explicitly recognize this possibility.
The Commission also received alternatives to the final rule from commenters that it chooses not to adopt:
• The Commission does not elect to extend the deadline beyond 180 days under 165.2(l) to retain status as the original source of information after first submitting the information to Congress, any federal or state authority, a registered entity, a registered futures association, a self-regulatory organization, or to any persons described in paragraphs (g)(4) and (5) of Rule 165.2 to be eligible for an award. The Commission believes that 180 days provides ample time for a whistleblower to provide information to the Commission after submitting the information to any of the aforementioned entities or authorities.
• The Commission declines a commenter's request that the Commission publish NCAs for Related Actions. The Commission believes that doing so would be unworkable and burdensome for the Commission. Publishing NCAs on all criminal and civil actions that may become related actions would require staff to track, monitor, and report on many actions that are not Commission actions.
• The Commission has chosen not to further revise Proposed Rules 165.10 and 165.13 to not categorically exclude from the record pre-decisional and internal deliberative process materials prepared to assist the Commission in award determinations. Under Rules 165.10 and 165.13, all factual materials relied on by Claims Review Staff or the Commission in making an award determination will be available to the claimant and reviewing court. The Commission believes that pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials that are prepared to assist the Commission or Claims Review Staff are protected by attorney-client privilege as well as attorney work product under well settled law. Similarly, the exclusion of any documents or materials provided by a third-party that have not been authorized for release by the third-party does not deny the claimant due process because these materials will not be considered by the Commission or Claims Review Staff in reaching a decision on the award claim.
• The Commission declines the request to amend Rule 165.14 to permit payment of any portion of an award prior to the completion of the appeals process for all whistleblower award claims arising from a NCA or related action. Section 23(f)(2) provides that the Commission's determination to whom to pay an award and the amount of any award is appealable to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals. In response to an appeal from a whistleblower who received no award from the Commission or who disagreed with the amount of a Commission award, a Court of Appeals could set aside the Commission's decision to make an award to another whistleblower under the same NCA or Related Action if that award decision does not meet the applicable standard of review.
• The Commission does not believe that Commission monitoring of the treatment of confidential whistleblower information by a receiving authority is necessary. Receiving authorities are bound by the same confidentiality provisions as the Commission. The Commission makes sure that a receiving authority understands these limitations when it shares confidential whistleblower information with them.
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the public interests protected by the antitrust laws and to take actions involving the least anti-competitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA. The Commission believes that the rules may have a positive effect on competition through improving detection, deterrence, and remediation of potential violations of the CEA and Commission regulations.
The Commission did not receive any comments on any antitrust considerations arising from the proposed amendments.
Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. 104-121 (March 29, 1996), as amended by Pub. L. 110-28 (May 25, 2007), the Commission solicits data to determine whether a proposed rule constitutes a “major” rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is considered “major” where, if adopted, it results or is likely to result in:
• An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more (either in the form of an increase or a decrease);
• A major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or
• Significant adverse effects on competition, investment or innovation.
If a rule is “major,” its effectiveness will generally be delayed for 60 days pending Congressional review.
The Commission received no comments or data on: The potential annual effect on the economy; any increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; and any potential effect on competition, investment or innovation and the Chairman certifies that these amendments do not constitute a “major rule”.
Whistleblowing.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 165 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 9, 12a(5), 13a, 13a-1, 13b, and 26.
(i) * * *
(2) The whistleblower gave the Commission original information about conduct that was already under examination or investigation by the Commission, the Congress, any other authority of the federal government, a state Attorney General or securities regulatory authority, any registered entity, registered futures association, or self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), foreign futures authority, or the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (except in cases where the whistleblower was an original source of this information as defined in paragraph (l) of this section), and the whistleblower's submission significantly contributed to the success of the action.
(3) The whistleblower reported original information through an entity's internal whistleblower, legal, or compliance procedures for reporting allegations of possible violations of law before or at the same time the whistleblower reported them to the Commission; the entity later provided the whistleblower's information to the Commission, or provided results of an audit or investigation initiated in whole or in part in response to information the whistleblower reported to the entity; and the information the entity provided to the Commission satisfies either paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this section. Under this paragraph (i)(3), the whistleblower must also submit the same information to the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 165.3 within 180 days of providing it to the entity.
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) In order to be considered an original source of information that the Commission receives from Congress, any other federal, state or local authority, a foreign futures authority, any registered entity, registered futures association, or any self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), the whistleblower must have voluntarily given such authorities the information within the meaning of this part. In determining whether the whistleblower is the original source of information, the Commission may seek assistance and confirmation from one of the other entities or authorities described in this paragraph (l)(1)(i).
(2)
(o)
(2) In addition, the whistleblower's submission will not be considered voluntary if the whistleblower is under a pre-existing legal or contractual duty to report the violations that are the subject of the whistleblower's original information to the Commission, Congress, any other federal or state authority, the Department of Justice, a registered entity, a registered futures association, or a self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), or a duty that arises out of a judicial or administrative order.
The revisions read as follows:
(a) A whistleblower will need to submit the whistleblower's information to the Commission. A whistleblower may submit the whistleblower's information:
(1) By completing and submitting a Form TCR online and submitting it electronically through the Commission's Web site at
(a)
(1) When disclosure is required to a defendant or respondent in connection
(2) When the Commission determines that it is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act and to protect customers, it may provide whistleblower information, without the loss of its status as confidential whistleblower information in the hands of the Commission, to: The Department of Justice; an appropriate department or agency of the Federal Government, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction; a registered entity, registered futures association, or a self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)); a State attorney general in connection with a criminal investigation; any appropriate State department or agency, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction; or a foreign futures authority; and, as set forth in section 23(h)(2)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act, each such entity is required to maintain the information as confidential in accordance with the requirements of section 23(h)(2)(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
(a) Subject to the eligibility requirements described in this part, the Commission will pay an award to one or more whistleblowers who:
(1) Provide a voluntary submission to the Commission;
(2) That contains original information; and
(3) That leads to the successful resolution of a covered judicial or administrative action or successful enforcement of a Related Action or both; and
(b) In order to be eligible, the whistleblower must:
(1) Have voluntarily provided the Commission original information in the form and manner that the Commission requires in § 165.3;
(2) Have submitted a claim in response to a Notice of Covered Action or a final judgment in a Related Action or both;
(3) Provide the Commission, upon its staff's request, certain additional information, including:
(i) Explanations and other assistance, in the manner and form that staff may request, in order that the staff may evaluate the use of the information submitted related to the whistleblower's application for an award;
(ii) All additional information in the whistleblower's possession that is related to the subject matter of the whistleblower's submission related to the whistleblower's application for an award; and
(iii) Testimony or other evidence acceptable to the staff relating to the whistleblower's eligibility for an award; and
(4) If requested by the Whistleblower Office, enter into a confidentiality agreement in a form acceptable to the Whistleblower Office, including a provision that a violation of the confidentiality agreement may lead to the whistleblower's ineligibility to receive an award.
(c) The Commission may, in its sole discretion, waive any procedural requirements based upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
(a) * * *
(1) To any whistleblower who is, or was at the time the whistleblower acquired the original information submitted to the Commission, a member, officer, or employee of: the Commission; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; the National Credit Union Administration Board; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Department of Justice; a registered entity; a registered futures association; a self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)); or a law enforcement organization;
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)(1) To file a claim for a whistleblower award, the whistleblower must file Form WB-APP, Application for Award for Original Information Provided Pursuant to Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act. The whistleblower must sign this form as the claimant and submit it to the Commission by mail or fax to Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, Fax (202) 418-5975, or by completing and submitting the Form WB-APP online and submitting it electronically through the Commission's Web site at
(2) The Form WB-APP, including any attachments, must be received by the Commission within 90 calendar days of the date of the Notice of Covered Action or 90 calendar days following the date of a final judgment in a Related Action (or if the final judgment in a Related Action was issued prior to the action meeting the definition of Related Action, within 90 calendar days following the date the action satisfied the definition of Related Action, except in the circumstances described in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section). One Form WB-APP may be filed in response to both a Notice of Covered Action and final judgment in a Related Action if the relevant time periods are applicable.
(3) If a covered judicial or administrative action and Related Action have different final judgment dates or if there is no covered judicial or administrative action connected to a Related Action, a claimant, who wishes to file a claim for an award in both a covered judicial or administrative action and a Related Action, or in a Related Action that does not have a connected covered judicial or administrative action, must follow one of the following procedures depending on that claimant's particular situation.
(i) If a final judgment imposing monetary sanctions in a Related Action has not been entered at the time the claimant submits a claim for an award in connection with a covered judicial or administrative action, the claimant must submit the claim for the Related Action on Form WB-APP within ninety (90) calendar days following the date of issuance of a final judgment in the Related Action.
(ii) If a final judgment in a Related Action has been entered and a Notice of Covered Action for a related covered judicial or administrative action has not been published, a claimant for an award in both the covered judicial or administrative action and Related Action may submit the claims for both the Related Action and the covered judicial or administrative action within ninety (90) days of the date of the Notice
(iii) If there is a final judgment in a Related Action that relates to a judicial or administrative action brought by the Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act that is not a covered judicial or administrative action, and therefore there is no Notice of Covered Action, a claimant for an award in connection with the Related Action must submit the claim in connection with the Related Action on Form WB-APP within ninety (90) calendar days following either:
(A) The date of issuance of a final judgment in the Related Action, if that date is after the date of issuance of the final judgment in the related Commission judicial or administrative action; or
(B) The date of issuance of the final judgment in the related Commission judicial or administrative action,
(d) A claimant may withdraw a Form WB-APP by submitting a written request to the Whistleblower Office at any time during the review process.
(e)(1) The Whistleblower Office may issue a Proposed Final Disposition for award applications that do not relate to a Notice of Covered Action, a final judgment in a Related Action, or a previously filed Form TCR without presentation of the award claim to the staff designated by the Director of the Division of Enforcement under § 165.15(a)(2) (“Claims Review Staff”). In such instances, the Whistleblower Office will inform the award claimant in writing that the claim does not relate to a Notice of Covered Action, a final judgment in a Related Action, or a previously filed Form TCR and will be rejected unless the claimant provides additional information. The claimant will have 30 days from the date of the written notice to respond and to correct the identified deficiencies. If the claimant does not respond in 30 days or if the response does not include information showing that the WB-APP relates to a Notice of Covered Action, a final judgment in a Related Action, or a previously filed Form TCR the Whistleblower Office will issue a Proposed Final Disposition. The claimant's failure to submit a timely response to the written notice from the Whistleblower Office will constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the claimant will be prohibited from pursuing an appeal under § 165.13.
(2) The Whistleblower Office will notify the Claims Review Staff of any Proposed Final Disposition under this paragraph (e). Within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, any member of the Claims Review Staff may request that the Proposed Final Disposition be reviewed by the Claims Review Staff. If no member of the Claims Review Staff requests such a review within the 30-day period, then the Proposed Final Disposition will become the Final Order of the Commission. In the event that a member of the Claims Review Staff requests a review, the Claims Review Staff will review the record that the Whistleblower Office relied upon in making its determination and either remand to the Whistleblower Office for further action or issue a Final Order of the Commission, which could consist of the Proposed Final Disposition.
(f)(1) In connection with each individual covered judicial or administrative action or final judgment in a Related Action, for which an award application is submitted, once the time for filing any appeals of the covered judicial or administrative action or the final judgment in the Related Action has expired (or, where an appeal is filed of the covered judicial or administrative action, or the final judgment in a Related Action, as applicable, and concluded), the Claims Review Staff designated under § 165.15(a)(2) will evaluate all timely whistleblower award claims submitted on Form WB-APP in response to a Notice of Covered Action, referenced in paragraph (a) of this section, or final judgment in a Related Action in accordance with the criteria set forth in this part.
(2) The Whistleblower Office may require that the claimant provide additional information relating to the claimant's eligibility for an award or satisfaction of any of the conditions for an award, as set forth in § 165.5(b)(2). The Whistleblower Office may also request additional information from the claimant in connection with the claim for an award in a Related Action to demonstrate that the claimant directly (or through the Commission) voluntarily provided the governmental agency, regulatory authority or self-regulatory organization the original information that led to the Commission's successful covered action, and that the information provided by the claimant led to the successful enforcement of the Related Action. The Whistleblower Office may also, in its discretion, seek assistance and confirmation from the other agency in making this determination.
(g)(1) Following Claims Review Staff evaluation, the Claims Review Staff will issue a Preliminary Determination setting forth a preliminary assessment as to whether the claim should be granted or denied and, if granted, setting forth the proposed award percentage amount. The Whistleblower Office will send a copy of the Preliminary Determination to the claimant.
(2) The claimant may contest the Preliminary Determination made by the Claims Review Staff by submitting a written response to the Whistleblower Office setting forth the grounds for the claimant's objection to either the denial of an award or the proposed amount of an award. The response must be in the form and manner that the Whistleblower Office shall require. The claimant may also include documentation or other evidentiary support for the grounds advanced in the claimant's response. The claimant may also request a meeting with the Whistleblower Office within the timeframes provided in this paragraph (g), however such meetings are not required, and the Whistleblower Office may in its sole discretion deny the request.
(i) Before determining whether to contest a Preliminary Determination, the claimant may, within thirty (30) days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, request that the Whistleblower Office make available for the claimant's review the materials from among those set forth in § 165.10 that formed the basis of the Claims Review Staff's Preliminary Determination.
(ii) If the claimant decides to contest the Preliminary Determination, the claimant must submit the claimant's written response and supporting materials setting forth the grounds for the claimant's objection to either the denial of an award or the proposed amount of an award within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the Preliminary Determination, or if a request to review materials used to make a Preliminary Determination is made pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section, then within sixty (60) calendar days of the Whistleblower Office making those materials available for the claimant's review. The claimant also may request a meeting with the Whistleblower Office within those same sixty (60) calendar days. However, such meetings are not required and the Whistleblower Office may in its sole discretion decline the request.
(h) If the claimant fails to submit a timely response pursuant to paragraph (g) of this section, then the Preliminary Determination will become the Final Order of the Commission (except where
(i) If the claimant submits a timely response under paragraph (g) of this section, then the Claims Review Staff will consider the issues and grounds advanced in the claimant's response, along with any supporting documentation the claimant provided, and will make its Proposed Final Determination.
(j) The Whistleblower Office will notify the Commission of each Proposed Final Determination. Within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter, any Commissioner may request that the Proposed Final Determination be reviewed by the Commission. If no Commissioner requests such a review within the 30-day period, then the Proposed Final Determination will become the Final Order of the Commission. In the event a Commissioner requests a review, the Commission will review the record that the staff relied upon in making its determinations, including the claimant's submissions to the Whistleblower Office, and issue its Final Order.
(k) A Preliminary Determination, Proposed Final Disposition, or a Proposed Final Determination may be issued only after a review for legal sufficiency by the Office of the General Counsel.
(l) The Office of the Secretariat will serve the claimant with the Final Order of the Commission.
The determination of the amount of an award shall be in the discretion of the Commission. This discretion shall be exercised as prescribed by § 165.7.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a) * * *
(8) With respect to an award claim involving a Related Action, any statements or other information that an entity provides or identifies in connection with an award determination, provided the entity has authorized the Commission to share the information with the claimant. (Neither the Commission nor the Claims Review Staff may rely upon information that the entity has not authorized the Commission to share with the applicant); and
(9) Any other documents or materials including sworn declarations from third-parties that are received or obtained by the Whistleblower Office to assist the Commission resolve the applicant's award application, including information related to the claimant's eligibility. (Neither the Commission nor the Claims Review Staff may rely upon information that a third party has not authorized the Commission to share with the claimant).
(b) The rules in this part do not entitle a claimant to obtain from the Commission any materials (including any pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials that are prepared to assist the Commission or Claims Review Staff in deciding the claim) other than those listed in paragraph (a) of this section. The Whistleblower Office may make redactions as necessary to comply with any statutory restrictions, to protect the Commission's law enforcement and regulatory functions, and to comply with requests for confidential treatment from other law enforcement and regulatory authorities.
(a) Provided that a whistleblower or whistleblowers comply with the requirements in §§ 165.3, 165.5 and 165.7, and pursuant to § 165.8, the Commission may grant an award based on the amount of monetary sanctions collected in a “Related Action” or “Related Actions”, where:
(1) A “Related Action” is a judicial or administrative action that is brought by:
(i) The Department of Justice;
(ii) An appropriate department or agency of the Federal Government, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction;
(iii) A registered entity, registered futures association, or self-regulatory organization (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a));
(iv) A State criminal or appropriate civil agency, acting within the scope of its jurisdiction; or
(v) A foreign futures authority; and
(2) The “Related Action” is based on the original information that the whistleblower voluntarily submitted to the Commission and led to a successful resolution of the Commission judicial or administrative action.
(b) The Commission will not make an award to a claimant for a final judgment in a Related Action if the claimant has already been granted an award by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for that same action pursuant to its whistleblower award program under section 21F of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78a
(c)
(a) Any Final Order of the Commission relating to a whistleblower award determination, including whether, to whom, or in what amount to make whistleblower awards, may be appealed to the appropriate court of appeals of the United States not more than 30 days after the Final Order of the Commission is issued, provided that administrative remedies have been exhausted.
(b) The record on appeal shall consist of:
(1) The Contents of Record for Award Determinations, as set forth in § 165.10. The record on appeal shall not include any pre-decisional or internal deliberative process materials that are prepared to assist the Commission or the Claims Review Staff in deciding the claim (including staff's draft Preliminary Determination or any Proposed Final Determination or staff's draft final determination); and
(2) The Preliminary Determination and the Final Order of the Commission, as set forth in § 165.7.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(1) In providing information to the Commission in accordance with this part; or
(2) In assisting in any investigation or judicial or administrative action of the Commission based upon or related to such information.
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(A) Reinstatement with the same seniority status that the individual would have had, but for the discrimination;
(B) The amount of back pay otherwise owed to the individual, with interest; and
(C) Compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discharge or discrimination, including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney's fees.
(2)
Questions concerning this form may be directed to Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Whistleblower Office, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• If you are submitting information for the CFTC's whistleblower award program, you
• You may submit this form electronically, through the Web portal found on the CFTC's Web site at
• You have the right to submit information anonymously. If you do not submit anonymously, please note that the CFTC is required by law to maintain the confidentiality of any information which could reasonably identify you, and will only reveal such information in limited and specifically-defined circumstances. See 7 U.S.C. 26(h)(2); 17 CFR 165.4. However, in order to receive a whistleblower award, you will need to be identified to select CFTC staff for a final eligibility determination, and in unusual circumstances, you may need to be identified publicly for trial. You should therefore provide some means for the CFTC's staff to contact you, such as a telephone number or an email address.
All references to “you” and “your” are intended to mean the complainant.
Questions 1-14: Please provide the following information about yourself:
Complete this section only if you are represented by an attorney in this matter.
Questions 1-10: Provide the following information about your attorney:
Question 1-2: Choose one of the following that best describes the individual's profession or the type of entity to which your complaint relates:
Questions 13: If the firm or individual you are complaining about has custody or control of your investment, identify whether you have had difficulty contacting that firm or individual.
Question 14: Identify if you are, or were, associated with the individual or firm you are complaining about. If yes, describe how you are, or were, associated with the individual or firm you are complaining about.
Question 15: Identify the initial form of contact between you and the person against whom you are filing this complaint.
Question 1: State the date (mm/dd/yyyy) that the alleged conduct occurred or began.
Question 2: Identify if the conduct is on-going.
Question 3: Choose the option that you believe best describes the nature of your complaint. If you are alleging more
Question 4: Select the type of product or instrument you are complaining about.
Question 5: If applicable, please name the product or instrument. If yes, please describe.
Question 6: Identify whether you have suffered a monetary loss. If yes, please describe.
Question 7: Identify if the individual or firm you are complaining about acknowledged their fault.
Question 8: Indicate whether you have taken any other action regarding your complaint, including whether you complained to the CFTC, another regulator, a law enforcement agency, or any other agency or organization, or initiated legal action, mediation, arbitration or any other action.
If you answered yes, provide details, including the date on which you took the action(s) described, the name of the person or entity to whom you directed any report or complaint, and contact information for the person or entity, if known, and the complete case name, case number and forum of any legal action you have taken.
Question 9: State in detail all facts pertinent to the alleged violation. Explain why you believe the facts described constitute a violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Question 10: Describe all supporting materials in your possession and the availability and location of any additional supporting materials not in your possession.
Question 1: Describe how you obtained the information that supports your allegations. If any information was obtained from an attorney or in a communication where an attorney was present, identify such information with as much particularity as possible. In addition, if any information was obtained from a public source, identify the source with as much particularity as possible.
Question 2: Identify any documents or other information in your submission on this Form TCR that you believe could reasonably be expected to reveal your identity. Explain the basis for your belief that your identity would be revealed if the documents or information were disclosed to a third party.
Question 3: State whether you or your attorney have had any prior communication(s) with the CFTC concerning this matter.
If you answered “yes”, identify the CFTC staff member(s) with whom you or your attorney communicated.
Question 4: Indicate whether you or your attorney have provided the information you are providing to the CFTC to any other agency or organization, or whether any other agency or organization has requested the information or related information from you.
If you answered “yes”, provide details and the name and contact information of the point of contact at the other agency or organization, if known.
Question 5: Indicate whether your complaint relates to an entity of which you are, or were in the past, an officer, director, counsel, employee, consultant or contractor.
If you answered “yes”, state whether you have reported this violation to your supervisor, compliance office, whistleblower hotline, ombudsman, or any other available mechanism at the entity for reporting violations. Please provide details, including the date on which you took the action.
Question 6: Indicate whether you have taken any other action regarding your complaint, including whether you complained to the CFTC, another regulator, a law enforcement agency, or any other agency or organization, or initiated legal action, mediation, arbitration or any other action.
If you answered “yes”, provide details, including the date on which you took the action(s) described, the name of the person or entity to whom you directed any report or complaint, and contact information for the person or entity, if known, and the complete case name, case number and forum of any legal action you have taken.
Question 7: Provide any additional information you think may be relevant.
Question 1: State whether you are currently, or were at the time that you acquired the original information that you are submitting to the CFTC, a member, officer or employee of: The CFTC; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; the National Credit Union Administration Board; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Department of Justice; a registered entity; a registered futures association; a self-regulatory organization (as defined in 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)); a law enforcement organization; or a foreign regulatory authority or law enforcement organization.
Question 2: State whether you are providing the information pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the CFTC or with another agency or organization.
Question 3: State whether you are providing this information before you (or anyone representing you) received any request, inquiry or demand that relates to the subject matter of this submission (i) from the CFTC, (ii) in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by any registered entity, registered futures association or self-regulatory organization (as defined in 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), or (iii) in connection with an investigation by the Congress, or any other federal or state authority.
Question 4: State whether you are currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation, or whether you have been convicted of a criminal violation, in connection with the information you are submitting to the CFTC.
Question 5: State whether you acquired the information you are providing to the CFTC from any individual described in Questions 1 through 4 of this section.
Question 6: If you answered yes to any of Questions 1 through 5, please provide details.
You must sign this Declaration if you are submitting this information pursuant to the CFTC whistleblower program and wish to be considered for an award. If you are submitting your information using the electronic version of Form TCR through the CFTC's web portal, you must check the box to agree with the declaration. If you are submitting your information anonymously, you must still sign this Declaration (using the term “anonymous”) or check the box as appropriate, and, if you are represented by an attorney, you must provide your attorney with the original of this signed form, or maintain a copy for your own records.
If you are submitting this information pursuant to the CFTC whistleblower program and you are doing so anonymously through an attorney, your attorney must sign the Counsel Certification Section. If your attorney is submitting your information using the electronic version of Form TCR through the CFTC's web portal, he/she must check the box to agree with the
This notice is given under the Privacy Act of 1974. The Privacy Act requires that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) inform individuals of the following when asking for information. The solicitation of this information is authorized under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1
Questions concerning this form may be directed to Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Whistleblower Office, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.
• This form
• You must sign the Form WB-APP as the claimant. If you wish to submit the Form WB-APP anonymously, you must do so through an attorney, your attorney must sign the Counsel Certification Section of the Form WB-APP that is submitted to the CFTC, and you must give your attorney your original signed Form WB-APP so that it can be produced to the CFTC upon request.
• During the whistleblower award claim process, your identity must be verified in a form and manner that is acceptable to the CFTC prior to the payment of any award.
○ If you are filing your claim in connection with information that you provided to the CFTC, then your Form WB-APP, and any attachments thereto, must be received by the CFTC within ninety (90) days of the date of the Notice of Covered Action, or the date of a final
○ If you are filing your claim in connection with information that you provided to another agency or organization in a related action, then your Form WB-APP, and any attachments thereto, must be received by the CFTC as follows:
• If a final order imposing monetary sanctions has been entered in a related action at the time that you submit your claim for an award in connection with a CFTC action, you may submit your claim for an award in that related action on the same Form WB-APP that you use for the CFTC action.
• If a final order imposing monetary sanctions in a related action has not been entered at the time that you submit your claim for an award in connection with a CFTC action, you must submit your claim on Form WB-APP within ninety (90) days of the issuance of a final order imposing sanctions in the related action.
• If a final order imposing monetary sanctions in a related action relates to a judicial or administrative action brought by the Commission under the Commodity Exchange Act that is not a covered judicial or administrative action, and therefore there would not be a Notice of Covered Action, you must submit your claim on Form WB-APP for an award in connection with the related action within ninety (90) calendar days following either (1) the date of issuance of a final order in the related action, if that date is after the date of issuance of the final judgment in the related Commission judicial or administrative action; or (2) the date of issuance of the final judgment in the related Commission judicial or administrative action,
• To submit your Form WB-APP, you may print it and either submit it by mail to Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Whistleblower Office, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581, or by facsimile to (202) 418-5975. You also may submit this form electronically, through the web portal found on the CFTC's Web site at
All references to “you” and “your” are intended to mean the whistleblower award claimant.
Complete this section only if you are represented by an attorney in this matter. Questions 1-4: Provide the following information about your attorney:
Question 1a: Indicate the manner in which you submitted your original information to the CFTC.
Question 1b: Provide the date on which you submitted your original information to the CFTC.
Question 2a: State whether you filed a CFTC Form TCR.
Question 2b: If you filed a CFTC Form TCR, provide the Form's number.
Question 2c: If you filed a CFTC Form TCR, provide the date on which you filed the Form.
Question 3: Provide the name(s) of the individual(s) and/or entity(s) to which your tip or complaint relates.
The process for making a claim for a whistleblower award for a CFTC action begins with the publication of a “Notice of Covered Action” on the CFTC's Web site. This Notice is published whenever a judicial or administrative action brought by the CFTC results in the imposition of monetary sanctions exceeding $1,000,000. The Notice is published on the CFTC's Web site subsequent to the entry of a final judgment or order in the action that by itself, or collectively with other judgments or orders previously entered in the action, exceeds the $1,000,000 threshold required for a whistleblower to be potentially eligible for an award. The CFTC will not contact whistleblower claimants directly as to Notices of Covered Actions; prospective claimants should monitor the CFTC Web site for such Notices.
Question 1: Provide the date of the Notice of Covered Action to which this claim relates.
Question 2: Provide the notice number of the Notice of Covered Action.
Question 3a: Provide the case name referenced in the Notice of Covered Action.
Question 3b: Provide the case number referenced in the Notice of Covered Action.
Question 1: Provide the name of the agency or organization to which you provided your information.
Question 2: Provide the name and contact information for your point of contact at the agency or organization, if known.
Question 3a: Provide the date on which you provided your information to the agency or organization referenced in Question 1 of this section.
Question 3b: Provide the date on which the agency or organization referenced in Question 1 of this section filed the related action that was based upon the information that you provided.
Question 4a: Provide the case name of the related action.
Question 4b: Provide the case number of the related action.
Question 1: State whether you are currently, or were at the time that you acquired the original information that you submitted to the CFTC, a member, officer or employee of: The CFTC; the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision; the National Credit Union Administration Board; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Department of Justice; a registered entity; a registered futures association; a self-regulatory organization; a law enforcement organization; or a foreign regulatory authority or law enforcement organization.
Question 2: State whether you provided the information that you submitted to the CFTC pursuant to a cooperation agreement with the CFTC, or with any other agency or organization.
Question 3: State whether you provided this information before you (or anyone representing you) received any request, inquiry or demand that relates to the subject matter of your submission (i) from the CFTC, (ii) in connection with an investigation, inspection or examination by any registered entity, registered futures association or self-regulatory organization, or (iii) in connection with an investigation by the Congress, or any other federal or state authority.
Question 4: State whether you are currently a subject or target of a criminal investigation, or whether you have been convicted of a criminal violation, in connection with the information that you submitted to the CFTC and upon which your application for an award is based.
Question 5: State whether you acquired the information that you provided to the CFTC from any individual described in Questions 1 through 4 of this section.
Question 6: If you answered yes to any of Questions 1 through 5 of this section, please provide details.
This section is optional. Use this section to explain the basis for your belief that you are entitled to an award in connection with your submission of information to the CFTC, or to another agency in connection with a related action. Specifically, address why you believe that you voluntarily provided the CFTC with original information that led to the successful enforcement of a judicial or administrative action filed by the CFTC, or a related action. Refer to § 165.9 of the CFTC's regulations for further information concerning the relevant award criteria.
Section 23(c)(1)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act and § 165.9(a) of the CFTC's regulations require the CFTC to consider the following factors in determining the amount of an award: (1) The significance of the information provided by a whistleblower to the success of the CFTC action or related action; (2) the degree of assistance provided by the whistleblower and any legal representative of the whistleblower in the CFTC action or related action; (3) the programmatic interest of the CFTC in deterring violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (including regulations under the Act) by making awards to whistleblowers who provide information that leads to the successful enforcement of such laws; (4) whether the award otherwise enhances the CFTC's ability to enforce the Commodity Exchange Act, protect customers, and encourage the submission of high quality information from whistleblowers; and (5) potential adverse incentives from oversize awards. Address these factors in your response as well.
You must sign this Declaration if you are submitting this claim pursuant to the CFTC whistleblower program and wish to be considered for an award. If you are submitting your claim anonymously, you must do so through an attorney, and you must provide your attorney with your original signed Form WB-APP.
If you are submitting this claim pursuant to the CFTC whistleblower program anonymously, you must do so through an attorney, and your attorney must sign the Counsel Certification Section.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Acting Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioner Bowen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
Office of the General Counsel, HUD.
Final rule.
This rule makes final the interim final rule, published on June 15, 2016, to amend HUD's civil monetary penalty (CMP) regulations. The interim final rule applied a new methodology to calculate civil money penalties as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, starting with a “catch up” adjustment to correct previous inaccuracies; removed three obsolete civil monetary penalty provisions; and made a technical change to the existing codified regulation implementing the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act. The changes from the interim final rule made final by this final rule continue to be effective as of August 16, 2016.
In addition, this rule provides for 2017 inflation adjustments of civil monetary penalty amounts required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, and makes three technical amendments and a conforming statutory change.
Dane Narode, Associate General Counsel, Office of Program Enforcement, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20024; telephone number 202-245-4141 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 2461 note) requiring all Federal agencies to issue an interim final rule implementing changes to their civil money penalties. On June 15, 2016, pursuant to the requirements of the 2015 Act, HUD published an interim final rule for public comment, entitled “Inflation Catch-Up Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalty Amounts” (81 FR 38931). The 2015 Act required agencies to make an initial catch-up adjustment by interim final rule, using a new methodology designed to correct inaccuracies in the previous method of computing inflation adjustments. In order to address these inaccuracies, the 2015 Act excluded adjustments made under the law prior to its amendment, and it provided that the initial catch-up adjustment was the percentage by which
The interim final rule established the new adjusted penalty amount for each provision under which HUD is authorized to assess a CMP (81 FR 38935-38936); removed the obsolete CMP provisions that were codified at 24 CFR 30.30, 30.55, and 30.69 (81 FR 38935); and made a correction to 24 CFR 28.10 to include liability for causing a false claim or statement to be made, in addition to liability for making a false claim or statement (81 FR 38935).
The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on August 15, 2016. The interim final rule became effective on August 16, 2016. The August 16, 2016, effective date for the amendments made by the interim final rule is unchanged. HUD received one comment in response to the interim final rule, but it was not actually relevant to any issue in the interim final rule.
After the catch-up adjustment, the 2015 Act requires agencies to make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation “notwithstanding section 553 of title 5, United States Code.” Section 553 refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, which might otherwise require a delay for advance notice and opportunity for public comment on future annual inflation adjustments. The first of these subsequent adjustments is for 2017.
The annual adjustment is based on the percent change between the U.S. Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, and the CPI-U for October of the prior year (28 U.S.C. 2461 note, section (5)(b)(1)). Based on that formula, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017 is 1.01636.
This rule makes final the June 15, 2016, interim rule. In addition, this rule makes the required 2017 inflation adjustment. Since HUD is not applying these adjustments retroactively, the 2016 increases being finalized apply to violations occurring prior to the effective date of this final rule (and on and after the effective date of the 2016 interim rule) and the 2017 increases apply to violations occurring on or after this rule's effective date.
Along with the 2017 inflation adjustment in this final rule, HUD also makes conforming and technical amendments to §§ 30.5, 30.10, 30.35, 30.36, and 30.80. Specifically, references to the former mortgage assignment procedures (in § 30.35), Urban Homesteading program (in §§ 30.5 and 30.80), and the Loan Correspondent program (in § 30.36) are removed, as those programs have been ended and are no longer active. In addition, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-22) amended the HUD Reform Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1735f-14(a)(2)) definition for “knowing or knowingly” as it applies to civil money penalties against mortgagees, lenders, and other participants in FHA programs. This rule amends the definition for “knowing or knowingly” in § 30.10 to include the 2009 statutory definition.
For each component, HUD provides a table showing how the penalties are being adjusted for 2017 pursuant to the 2015 Act. In the first column, HUD provides a description of the penalty. In the second column (“Statutory Citation,”) HUD provides the United States Code statutory citation providing for the penalty. In the third column (“Regulatory citation”), HUD provides the Code of Federal Regulations citation under title 24 for the penalty. In the fourth column (“Previous Amount”), HUD provides the amount of the penalty pursuant to the interim rule implementing the “catch-up” adjustment (81 FR 38931, June 15, 2016). In the fifth column, (“2017 Adjusted Amount”) HUD lists the penalty after applying the 2017 inflation adjustment.
HUD generally publishes regulations for public comment before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advanced notice and public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public procedure is “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (see 24 CFR 10.1). As discussed, this final rule adopts without change the amendments offered for public comment in the June 15, 2106, interim final rule. In addition, this rule makes the required 2017 inflation adjustment, which HUD does not have discretion to change. Moreover, the 2015 Act specifies that a delay in the effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act is not required for subsequent annual adjustments under the 2015 Act. HUD has determined, therefore, that it is unnecessary to delay the effectiveness of the 2017 inflation adjustments to solicit prior public comments.
As discussed in the preamble to the June 15, 2016, interim final rule, section 7(o) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(o)) requires that any HUD regulation implementing any provision of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 that authorizes the imposition of a civil money penalty may not become effective until after the expiration of a public comment period of not less than 60 days. HUD met this separate 60-day delay requirement for implementing civil money penalties when HUD implemented the new 2015 Act penalty calculation in its June 16, 2016, interim final rule.
Moreover, and as noted above, the 2017 inflation adjustments are made in accordance with a statutorily prescribed formula that does not provide for agency discretion. Accordingly, a delay in the effectiveness of the 2017 inflation adjustments in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment is unnecessary because the 2015 Act exempts the adjustments from the need for delay and, in any event, HUD would not have the discretion to make changes as a result of any comments.
Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review) directs executive agencies to analyze regulations that are “outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Executive Order 13563 also directs that, where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, agencies are to identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. As discussed above in this preamble, this final rule adjusts existing civil monetary penalties for inflation by a statutorily required amount.
As a result of this review, OMB determined that this rule was not significant under Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes
This interim final rule does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern, or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this final rule is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—housing and community development, Mortgage insurance, Penalties.
Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Civil rights, Fair housing, Individuals with disabilities, Investigations, Mortgages, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Intergovernmental relations, Manufactured homes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD adopts as final the interim final rule published on June 15, 2016, at 81 FR 38931, and further amends 24 CFR parts 28, 30, 87, 180, and 3282 as follows:
28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of not more than $10,957 may be imposed upon any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a claim that the person knows or has reason to know:
(b) * * *
(1) A civil penalty of not more than $10,957 may be imposed upon any person who makes, presents, or submits, or causes to be made, presented, or submitted, a written statement that:
12 U.S.C. 1701q-1, 1703, 1723i, 1735f-14, and 1735f-15; 15 U.S.C. 1717a; 28 U.S.C. 1 note and 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 1437z-1 and 3535(d).
(b)
(b)
(c)(1)
(c)
(c)
(g)
(c)
(c)
(b)
(c)
28 U.S.C. 1 note; 31 U.S.C. 1352; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
(a) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $19,246 and not more than $192,459 for each such expenditure.
(b) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $19,246 and not more than $192,459 for each such failure.
(e) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $19,246, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $19,246 and $192,459, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
28 U.S.C. 1 note; 29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1, 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5320, and 6103.
(a) * * *
(1) $20,111, if the respondent has not been adjudged in any administrative hearing or civil action permitted under the Fair Housing Act or any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local governmental agency, to have committed any prior discriminatory housing practice.
(2) $50,276, if the respondent has been adjudged in any administrative hearing or civil action permitted under the Fair Housing Act, or under any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local government agency, to have committed one other discriminatory housing practice and the adjudication was made during the 5-year period preceding the date of filing of the charge.
(3) $100,554, if the respondent has been adjudged in any administrative hearings or civil actions permitted under the Fair Housing Act, or under any state or local fair housing law, or in any licensing or regulatory proceeding conducted by a federal, state, or local government agency, to have committed two or more discriminatory housing practices and the adjudications were made during the 7-year period preceding the date of filing of the charge.
28 U.S.C. 1 note; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5424.
Failure to comply with these regulations may subject the party in question to the civil and criminal penalties provided for in section 611 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 5410. The maximum amount of penalties imposed under section 611 of the Act shall be $2,795 for each violation, up to a maximum of $3,493,738 for any related series of violations occurring within one year from the date of the first violation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Buffalo Outer Harbor, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Outer Harbor during the May 28, 2017 fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display.
This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on May 28, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
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
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on May 28, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Buffalo Outer Harbor contained within a 280-foot radius of position 42°52′10.75″ N. and 078°52′56.01″ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive order related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement for only one hour late in the evening. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
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
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 creates a temporary safety zone and is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establisnment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correcting amendment.
On March 13, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a direct final rule in the
This correcting amendment is effective on May 30, 2017.
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3964,
This action corrects an inadvertent error in a rulemaking related to the EPA's approval of the 2008 emissions inventory for the Imperial County NA. On March 13, 2017, the EPA published a direct final rule approving a revision of the California SIP—specifically, we approved the portion of Chapter 3 of CARB's January 9, 2015 submittal that contains the 2008 emissions inventory for the Imperial County NA. This action contained amendatory instructions that added paragraph (484) to 40 CFR 52.220(c). However, in the amendatory instructions the EPA inadvertently failed to exclude Section 3.4.2 (“Determination of Significant Sources of PM
In the direct final rule published in the
The EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Public notice and comment for this action are unnecessary because the underlying rule for which this correcting amendment has been prepared was already subject to a 30-day comment period. No comments were received. Further, this action, which corrects an inadvertent regulatory text error that was included in the EPA's March 13, 2017 direct final rule, is consistent with the substantive revision to the California SIP as described in the preamble of said action concerning the approval of the 2008 emissions inventory for the Imperial County NA. Because this correction action does not change the EPA's analysis or overall action related to the approval of the 2008 emissions inventory, no purpose would be served by additional public notice and comment. Consequently, additional public notice and comment are unnecessary.
The EPA also finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the correction in the amendatory instructions and related paragraph designation to become effective on the date of publication. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This rule does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. This action merely corrects an inadvertent error in the regulatory text of the EPA's prior rulemaking for the California SIP. For these reasons, the EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for the correction to § 52.220(c)(484)(ii)(A)(
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute as indicated in the
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(484) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Delaware state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective May 30, 2017.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Gavin Huang, (215) 814-2042 or by email at
The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997
1. 7 DNREC regulation 1103 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), sections 1.0 (General Provisions), 4.0 (Sulfur Dioxide), 6.0 (Ozone), 8.0 (Nitrogen Dioxide), 10.0 (Lead), and 11.0 (PM
2. 7 DNREC regulation 1140 (Delaware Low Emission Vehicle Program), sections 1.0 (Purpose), 2.0 (Applicability), 3.0 (Definitions), 4.0 (Emission Certification Standards), 5.0 (New Vehicle Emission Requirements), 6.0 (Manufacturer Fleet Requirements), 7.0 (Warranty), 8.0 (Reporting and Record-Keeping Requirements), 9.0 (Enforcement), 10.0 (Incorporation by Reference), 11.0 (Document Availability), and 12.0 (Severability).
In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.420(b). EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of Plan” for the State of Delaware regarding incorporation by reference, section 52.420(b). EPA is revising section 52.420(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision, consistent with following our “Approval and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,” effective May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968). EPA is revising section 52.420(b)(2) to clarify references to other portions of paragraph (b) with subparagraph (b)(2). EPA is revising section (b)(3) to update address and contact information.
EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the State of Delaware and federally effective prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Delaware SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of Plan” update action for Delaware.
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
(b)
(2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the SIP as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1). No additional revisions were made to paragraph (d) between the last incorporation by reference date of July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2016.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office at (215) 814-3376. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the State of Delaware at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving updates to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) air quality regulations in the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EFSEC regulations primarily adopt by reference the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) general air quality regulations, which the EPA approved in the fall of 2014 and spring of 2015. Consistent with our approval of the Ecology general air quality regulations, we are also approving revisions to EFSEC's air quality regulations to implement the preconstruction permitting regulations for large industrial (major source) energy facilities in attainment and unclassifiable areas, called the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD program for major energy facilities under EFSEC's jurisdiction has historically been operated under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in cooperation with the EPA and Ecology. This final approval of the EFSEC PSD program transfers the authority for issuing PSD permits from EPA to EFSEC for all of the categories of energy facilities for which EFSEC has jurisdiction. This narrows the current FIP to cover only those energy facilities for which EFSEC does not have jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is also approving EFSEC's visibility protection permitting program which overlaps significantly with the PSD program in most cases.
This final rule is effective June 29, 2017.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0785. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave. Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address:
On March 22, 2017, the EPA proposed to approve revisions to EFSEC's general air quality regulations in the SIP (82 FR 14648). An explanation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions, and the EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on April 21, 2017. The EPA received one comment on the proposal.
The EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference, the submitted revisions to Chapter 463-78 Washington Administrative Code (WAC) set forth below as amendments to 40 CFR part 52.
In addition to the regulations approved and incorporated by reference, the EPA reviews and approves state submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing state enforcement and other general authorities are generally not incorporated by reference, so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. The EPA has reviewed and is approving WAC 463-78-135
As discussed in our July 10, 2014 proposed approval of revisions to Chapter 173-400 WAC, Ecology formerly relied on the registration program under WAC 173-400-100 for determining the applicability of the new source review (NSR) permitting program (see 79 FR 39351 at page 39354). By statutory directive, this means of determining NSR applicability was replaced by revisions to WAC 173-400-110 which set inconsequential unit, activity, and emissions thresholds. In our October 3, 2014 final action, we
As discussed in the proposal for this action, EFSEC adopted by reference most of the provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC, but excluded certain provisions pertaining to authorities or source categories outside EFSEC's jurisdiction. WAC 173-400-151
As part of the SIP revision package, EFSEC requested approval to exercise its authority to fully administer the PSD program with respect to those sources under EFSEC's permitting jurisdiction that have existing PSD permits issued by the EPA. This includes authority to conduct general administration of these existing permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such permits (
The EFSEC PSD and visibility permitting programs primarily incorporate Chapter 173-400 by reference and the December 20, 2016 SIP revision package requested that the EPA approve the updated EFSEC regulations consistent with our prior approval of the Ecology regulations. As discussed in our April 29, 2015 approval of Ecology's regulations under Chapter 173-400 WAC, Washington State does not regulate certain carbon dioxide emissions from industrial combustion of biomass under its PSD program. See 80 FR 23721, at page 23722. We are therefore revising the PSD FIP at 40 CFR 52.2497 and the visibility protection FIP at 40 CFR 52.2498 to reflect the approval of EFSEC's PSD and visibility permitting programs, consistent with our prior approval of Chapter 173-400 WAC.
Also as discussed in our prior approval of Ecology's updated Chapter 173-400 WAC regulations, the EPA is excluding from the scope of this approval of EFSEC's PSD and visibility permitting programs all Indian reservations in the State, except for nontrust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. See 80 FR 23721, at page 23726. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local air agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey Area and the EPA is therefore approving EFESEC's PSD and visibility permitting programs into the SIP with respect to such lands.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference as described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. These materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the 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 the 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 CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• is not a “significant regulatory action” 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 this action does not involve technical standards; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. The SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area), or any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. Consistent with EPA policy, the EPA provided a consultation opportunity to the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated July 1, 2016. The EPA did not receive a request for consultation.
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 July 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
(a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air Act are not fully met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for preventing the significant deterioration of air quality from:
(1) Facilities with carbon dioxide (CO
(i) Where a new major stationary source or major modification would be subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements for greenhouse gases (GHGs) under 40 CFR 52.21 but would not be subject to PSD under the state implementation plan (SIP) because CO
(ii) Where a new major stationary source or major modification is subject to PSD for GHGs under both the Washington SIP and the FIP, but CO
(2) Indian reservations in Washington, except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
(3) Sources subject to PSD permits issued by the EPA prior to August 7, 1977, but only with respect to the general administration of any such permits still in effect (
(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not fully met because the plan does not include approvable procedures for visibility new source review for:
(1) Sources subject to the jurisdiction of local air authorities (except Benton Clean Air Agency and Southwest Clean Air Agency);
(2) Indian reservations in Washington except for non-trust land within the exterior boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation (also known as the 1873 Survey Area) as provided in the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, and any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Virginia state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective May 30, 2017, except that amendatory instruction 2.d amending 40 CFR 52.2420(e) is effective June 9, 2017.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Sharon McCauley, (215) 814-3376 or by email at
The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997
Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved the following regulatory changes to the following regulations and sections for Virginia.
1. Chapter 30 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), section 5-30-67.
2. Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), part II (Emission Standards), article 48 (Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing), section 5-40-6975.
3. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products) (entire chapter; part I (Special Provisions are added); 7 articles in part II (Emission Standards) are added:
4. Chapter 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources), Article 8 (Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region)), section 5-80-1915.
5. Chapter 80 (Permits for Stationary Sources), Article 9 (Permits—Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Located in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region), section 5-80-2195.
6. Chapter 85 (Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation), part III (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Actions), section 5-85-55.
7. Chapter 160 (Regulation for General Conformity), part III (Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations), sections 5-160-181 through 5-160-185 inclusive.
8. Chapter 170 (Regulations for General Administration), part IX, Conflict of Interest, section 5-170-210.
9. Code of Virginia, section 10-1-1302 (Qualifications of members of Boards).
10. The addition of an operating permit under Source Specific Requirements for GP Big Island, LLC (Registration Number 20232).
11. The addition of an operating permit under Source Specific Requirements for Mead Westvaco Corporation (Registration Number 20328).
12. The addition of an operating permit under Source Specific Requirements for O-N Minerals Facility (Registration Number 80252).
13. The addition of an operating permit under Source Specific Requirements for Mondelez Global LLC, Inc.—Richmond Bakery (Registration Number 50703).
1. Chapter 10 (General Definitions), section 5-10-20 (Terms Defined) and section 5-10-30 (Abbreviations).
2. Chapter 20 (General Provisions), part II, sections 5-20-203 (Air Quality Maintenance Areas) and 5-20-204 (Nonattainment Areas).
3. Chapter 30 (Ambient Air Quality Standards), sections 5-30-15, 5-30-30, and 5-30-55.
4. Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), part II (Emission Standards), article 4, section name changed to General Process Operations.
5. Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), part II (Emission Standards), article 43 (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), sections 5-40-5810, 5-40-5820, 5-40-5850, 5-40-5880, and 5-40-5920.
6. Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), part II (Emission Standards), article 48 (Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing), sections 5-40-6970 and 5-40-7050.
7. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 1 (Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Containers and Spouts Manufactured Before August 1, 2010), sections 5-45-70 and 5-45-90.
8. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 2 (Emission Standards for Portable Fuel Containers and Spouts Manufactured On or After August 1, 2010), sections 5-45-160, 5-45-170 and 5-45-240.
9. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 3 (Emission Standards for Consumer Products Manufactured Before August 1, 2010), section 5-45-310.
10. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 4 (Emission Standards for Consumer Products Manufactured On or After August 1, 2010), sections 5-45-400, 5-45-420, 5-45-430 and 5-45-480.
11. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 5 (Emission Standards for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings), sections 5-45-520, 5-45-530 and 5-45-580.
12. Chapter 45 (Consumer and Commercial Products (applicable to the Northern Virginia and Fredericksburg VOC Emissions Control Areas)), part II (Emission Standards), article 6 (Emission Standards for Adhesives and Sealants), sections 5-45-620, 5-45-630, 5-45-650 and 5-45-700.
13. In Chapter 80:
a. Article 8 (Permits-Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications
b. Article 9, sections 5-80-2010, 5-80-2020, 5-80-2120, 5-80-2140, and 5-80-2200 through 5-80-2240 inclusive.
14. Chapter 85 (Permits for Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to Regulation), part III (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Actions), section 5-85-50.
15. Chapter 130 (Regulations for Open Burning), part I (General Provisions), sections 5-130-20 and 5-130-40.
16. Chapter 140 (Regulations for Emissions Trading Programs), part I (NOx Budget Trading Program), article 10 (State Trading Program Budget and Compliance Pool), sections 5-140-900, 5-140-920, and 5-140-930.
17. Chapter 151 (Transportation Conformity), part III (Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations), sections 5-151-40 and 5-151-70.
18. In Chapter 160:
a. Part I (General Definitions), section 5-160-20.
b. Part II (General Provisions), section 5-160-30.
c. Part III, sections 5-160-110 through 5-160-180 inclusive.
19. Chapter 170 (Regulation for General Administration), part 1 (Definitions), section 5-170-20.
1. The following articles in 9VAC5 Chapter 40 (Existing Stationary Sources), part II (Emission Standards) are removed:
2. Chapter 91 (Regulations for the Control of Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Northern Virginia Area), part II (General Provisions), sections 5-91-40, 5-91-60, 5-91-80, and 5-91-110.
3. Chapter 160 (Regulation for General Conformity), part III (Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations), section 5-160-200.
4. Chapter 200 (National Low Emission Vehicle Program), in its entirety.
5. The operating permit for Transcontinental Pipeline Station 175 (Registration No. 40789) in the Source Specific Requirements.
In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.2420(b).
EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of Plan” for the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding incorporation by reference, section 52.2420(b). EPA is revising section 52.2420(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision, consistent with following our “Approval and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,” effective May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968). EPA is revising section 52.2420(b)(2) to clarify references to other portions of paragraph (b) with subparagraph (b)(2). EPA is revising section (b)(3) to update address and contact information. In the table for paragraph 40 CFR 52.2420(c), EPA is:
1. Reorganizing the entries for section 5-10-20 (Definitions- Terms Defined).
2. Revising the CFR to include previously approved sections for 5-30-80 (Lead) and 5-160-10 (General).
3. Revising the entries for sections 5-40-7410, 5-130-10, 5-170-210 and 5-220-60.
4. Correcting a typographical error in the title of Article 48, Emission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing (Rule 4-48).
5. Removing duplicate and/or additional outdated entries for sections 5-80-2020 and 5-85-50.
In the table for paragraph 52.2420(d), EPA is correcting incorrect
EPA is also splitting the existing § 52.2420(e) table (EPA-approved non-regulatory and quasi-regulatory material) into two tables designated as § 52.2420(e)(1) (Non-regulatory material) and § 52.2420(e)(2) (Documents incorporated by reference in regulation 9VAC5-20-21). While there are format changes in the column titles due to this table organization, the substantive text of the existing entries and any additional entries which have been approved since the last VA IBR update do not change.
EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of previously EPA approved regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth of Virginia and federally effective prior to July 1, 2016. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Virginia SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Virginia.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The amendments read as follows:
(b)
(2) EPA Region III certifies that the materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated Commonwealth rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1).
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office at (215) 814-3376. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the Commonwealth of Virginia at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to:
(c) * * *
(d) * * *
(e)
(1)
(2)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. The revision consists of a Maryland regulation that regulates nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on June 29, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Marilyn Powers, (215) 814-2308, or by email at
On January 11, 2017 (82 FR 3233), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of a Maryland regulation to control emissions of NO
As noted in the NPR, this action pertains only to the changes to COMAR 26.11.38 that were submitted by MDE on November 20, 2015 with a State effective date of August 31, 2015, namely COMAR 26.11.38.01-.05. Subsequent revisions and amendments to this regulation have been made by MDE, but have not yet been submitted to EPA for incorporation into the Maryland SIP.
The revision consists of Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.38—Control of NO
EPA received two anonymous comments on the January 11, 2017 proposed approval of COMAR 26.11.38 for the Maryland SIP.
EPA is approving Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.38, submitted in the November 20, 2015 SIP submission, which has a state effective date of August 31, 2015, as a revision to the Maryland SIP as a SIP strengthening measure in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. COMAR 26.11.38.01-.05 imposes NO
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.38.01-.05 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” 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 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 July 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving Maryland regulation COMAR 26.11.38 into the Maryland SIP may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) into the Maryland state implementation plan (SIP). The regulations affected by this update have been previously submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and approved by EPA. This update affects the SIP materials that are available for public inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the EPA Regional Office.
This action is effective May 30, 2017.
SIP materials which are incorporated by reference into 40 CFR part 52 are available for inspection at the following locations: Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; or NARA. For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Sharon McCauley, (215) 814-3376, or by email at
The SIP is a living document which a state revises as necessary to address its unique air pollution problems. Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must take action on SIP revisions containing new and/or revised regulations as being part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968), EPA revised the procedures for incorporating by reference federally-approved SIPs, as a result of consultations between EPA and the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The description of the revised SIP document, IBR procedures and “Identification of plan” format are discussed in further detail in the May 22, 1997
Since the publication of the last IBR update, EPA has approved the following regulatory changes to the following regulations, statutes, and source-specific actions for Maryland:
1. COMAR 26.11.09.10 (Requirements to Burn Used Oil and Waste Combustible Fluid as Fuel).
2. COMAR 26.11.09.12 (Standards for Biomass Fuel-Burning Equipment Equal to or Greater Than 350,000 Btu/hr).
3. COMAR 26.11.17.06 through .09 (Requirements for New Sources and Modifications).
4. COMAR 26.11.19.07-2 (Plastic Parts and Business Machines Coating).
5. COMAR 26.11.19.27-1 (Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Pleasure Craft Coating Operations).
6. COMAR 26.11.26.01, 26.11.26.04 through .09 (Conformity).
7. COMAR 26.11.34.01 through .14 (Low Emissions Vehicle Program).
8. COMAR 26.11.35.01 through .07 (Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and Sealants).
9. COMAR 20.79.01.01 (part), .02 (part), and .06 (Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines—General).
10. COMAR 20.79.02.01 through 20.79.02.03 (Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines—Administrative Provisions).
11. COMAR 20.79.03.01 and 20.79.03.02 (part) (Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead Transmission Lines—Details of Filing Requirements—Generating Stations).
12. Public Utility Companies Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, sections 7-205, 7-207 (part), 7-207.1 (part), and 7-208.
13. Annotated Code of Maryland, title 15 (Public Ethics) which was also removed and replaced (see section C of this rulemaking).
14. Annotated Code of Maryland, section 5-101 (a),(e),(f), (g)(1) and (2), (h), (i), (j), (m), (n), (p), (s), (t), (bb), (ff), (gg), (ll) (Definitions), section 5-103(a) through (c) (Designation of Individuals as Public Officials, section 5-208(a) (Determination of Public Official in Executive agency), section 5-501(a) and (c) (Restrictions on Participation), section 5-601(a) (Individuals Required to File Statement), section 5-602(a) (Financial Disclosure Statement—Filing Requirements), section 5-606(a) (Public Records), section 5-607(a) through (j) (Content of statements), and section 5-608(a) through (c) (Interests Attributable to Individual Filing Statement).
15. In 40 CFR 52.1070(d), a source specific requirement was added for the GenOn Chalk Point Generating Station—2011 Consent Decree for Chalk Point.
1. COMAR 26.11.01.01 (Definitions).
2. COMAR 26.11.01.04 (Testing and Monitoring).
3. COMAR 26.11.02.01 (Definitions), .09 (Sources Subject to Permits to Construct), .10 (Sources Exempt from Permits to Construct and Approvals),
4. COMAR 26.11.04.02 (Ambient Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Reference Conditions, and Methods of Measurement).
5. COMAR 26.11.06.14 (Control of PSD Sources).
6. COMAR 26.11.09.01 (Definitions), .04 (Prohibition of Certain New Fuel Burning Equipment), .06 (Control of Particulate Matter), .07 (Control of Sulfur Oxides from Fuel Burning Equipment), and .09 (Tables and Diagrams).
7. COMAR 26.11.10.03 (Visible Emissions).
8. COMAR 26.11.13.04 (Loading Operations) and .05 (Gasoline Leaks from Tank Trucks).
9. COMAR 26.11.17.01 (Definitions), .02 (Applicability), .03 (General Conditions), .04 (Creating Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs)), .05 (Information on Emission Reductions and Certification).
10. The following regulations in COMAR 26.11.19 (Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes):
a. COMAR 26.11.19.02 (Applicability, Determining Compliance, Reporting, and General Requirements).
b. COMAR 26.11.19.07 (Paper, Fabric, Film, and Foil Coating).
c. COMAR 26.11.19.08 (Metal Parts and Products Coating).
d. COMAR 26.11.19.11 (Lithographic and Letterpress Printing).
e. COMAR 26.11.19.13 (Drum and Pail Coating).
f. COMAR 26.11.19.15 (Paint, Resin, and Adhesive Manufacturing and Adhesive and Sealant Applications).
g. COMAR 26.11.19.23 (Control of VOC Emissions from Vehicle Refinishing).
h. COMAR 26.11.19.30 (Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Chemical Production and Flouropolymer Material Installations).
11. COMAR 26.11.26.01 (Purpose), .02 (Definitions) and .03 (Transportation Conformity).
12. COMAR 26.11.34.01 (Purpose), .02 (Incorporation by Reference), .03 (Applicability and Exemptions, .04 (Definitions), .05 (Emission Requirements), .06 (Fleet Average NMOG Credit Account Balances), .07 (Initial NMOG Credit Account Balances), .08 (Fleet Average Greenhouse Gas Requirements), .09 (Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Requirements), .10 (Initial ZEV Credit Account Balances), .11 (Vehicle Testing), .12 (Warranty), .13 (Manufacturer Compliance Demonstration), and .14 (Enforcement).
1. COMAR 26.11.04.03 through .09 (State Ambient Air Quality Standards).
2. Annotated Code of Maryland, title 15 (Public Ethics).
3. Consent orders and/or consent decrees for Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO)—Chalk Point Units #1 and #2, Beall Junior/Senior High School, Mt. Saint Mary's College, and Maryland Slag Co.
In this action, EPA is announcing the update to the IBR material as of July 1, 2016 and revising the text within 40 CFR 52.1070(b).
EPA is revising our 40 CFR part 52 “Identification of Plan” for the State of Maryland regarding incorporation by reference, § 52.1070(b). EPA is revising § 52.1070(b)(1) to clarify that all SIP revisions listed in paragraphs (c) and (d), regardless of inclusion in the most recent “update to the SIP compilation,” are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking in which EPA approved the SIP revision, consistent with following our “Approval and Promulgations of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Revised Format of 40 CFR part 52 for Materials Being Incorporated by Reference,” effective May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27968). EPA is revising § 52.1070(b)(2) to clarify references to other portions of paragraph (b) with paragraph (b)(2). EPA is revising paragraph (b)(3) to update address and contact information.
In the table for 40 CFR 52.1070(c):
1. Revising the
2. Adding a
3. Revising the title of the State Government Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland to read, “General Provisions Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland (formerly cited at Section 15 of State Government Article).”
In the table for 40 CFR 52.1070(d):
1. Restoring an entry for PEPCO—Dickerson which was inadvertently removed from the table during a prior final rulemaking action.
2. Revising an incorrect
3. Reorganizing the table so that the entries appear in the order which EPA's approval actions occurred.
EPA has determined that this rule falls under the “good cause” exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes agencies to dispense with public participation and section 553(d)(3) which allows an agency to make a rule effective immediately (thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA). This rule simply codifies provisions which are already in effect as a matter of law in federal and approved state programs. Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Public comment is “unnecessary” and “contrary to the public interest” since the codification only reflects existing law. Immediate notice in the CFR benefits the public by removing outdated citations and incorrect table entries.
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has also determined that the provisions of section 307(b)(1) of the CAA pertaining to petitions for judicial review are not applicable to this action. Prior EPA rulemaking actions for each individual component of the Maryland SIP compilations had previously afforded interested parties the opportunity to file a petition for judicial review in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days of such rulemaking action. Thus, EPA sees no need in this action to reopen the 60-day period for filing such petitions for judicial review for this “Identification of plan” update action for Maryland.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b)
(2) EPA Region III certifies that the following materials provided by EPA at the addresses in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are an exact duplicate of the officially promulgated state rules/regulations which have been approved as part of the state implementation plan as of the dates referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Copies of the materials incorporated by reference into the state implementation plan may be inspected at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. To obtain the material, please call the Regional Office at (215) 814-3376. You may also inspect the material with an EPA approval date prior to July 1, 2016 for the State of Maryland at the National
(c) * * *
(d) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the April 14, 2016, request from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Indiana) to redesignate the Muncie nonattainment area to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for lead. EPA is also approving the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 for the area and the 2013 attainment year emissions inventory for the area. EPA is approving these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.
This direct final rule will be effective July 31, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 29, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137 at
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. However, lead has serious public health effects and depending on the level of exposure can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular system. Today, the highest levels of lead in the air are usually found near lead smelters. In the Muncie area the only source of lead emissions is Exide Technologies, whose facility houses a lead smelter that processes used batteries and other metal waste products.
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the primary and secondary lead NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m
The CAA sets forth the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA authorizes EPA to redesignate an area provided that: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the area under section 110(k) of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, or other permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA; and (5) the state containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA is approving the redesignation of the Muncie area to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS, as well as Indiana's maintenance plan and emissions inventory for the area. The bases for these actions follow.
In accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7407, EPA is determining that the Muncie, Indiana area has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Muncie area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 50, appendix R. All data considered are complete, quality-assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database. This review addresses air quality data collected in the 2013-2015 period, which are the most recent quality-assured data available. Our determination that the Muncie area has attained the 2008 lead NAAQS is based upon data for the 2013-2015 monitoring
Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.16, the 2008 primary and secondary lead standards are met when the maximum arithmetic three-month mean concentration for a three-year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix R, is less than or equal to 0.15 μg/m
The data from 2013-2015 are still the most recent quality-assured and certified data for the Muncie area. Indiana indicated that it will continue to use and maintain the Muncie lead monitor to determine whether the area continues to attain the standard. The 2013-2015 data show that the maximum value for the three-year period was 0.11 μg/m
We have determined that Indiana has met all currently applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation for the Muncie area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements). In addition, with the exception of the emissions inventory under section 172(c)(3), all applicable planning requirements of the Indiana SIP for purposes of redesignation have either been approved or have been suspended by either a clean data determination or determination of attainment. As discussed below, in this action, EPA is approving Indiana's 2013 emissions inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) comprehensive emissions inventory requirement. Thus, we are determining that the Indiana submittal meets all SIP requirements currently applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA, in accordance with sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v).
In making these determinations, we have ascertained which SIP requirements are applicable for purposes of redesignation, and concluded that the Indiana SIP includes measures meeting those requirements and that they are fully approved under section 110(k) of the CAA.
Section 110(a) of title I of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. Section 110(a)(2) provides that the implementation plan submitted by a state must have been adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and, among other things, must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA; provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to monitor ambient air quality; provide for implementation of a source permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan; include provisions for the implementation of part C, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and part D, New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; include criteria for stationary source emission control measures, monitoring, and reporting; include provisions for air quality modeling; and provide for public and local agency participation in planning and emission control rule development. Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA requires that SIPs contain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state.
EPA interprets the “applicable” requirements for an area's redesignation to be those requirements linked with a particular area's nonattainment designation. Therefore, we believe that the section 110 elements described above that are not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked with an area's attainment status, such as the “infrastructure SIP” elements of section 110(a)(2), are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. A state remains subject to these requirements after an area is redesignated to attainment, and thus EPA does not interpret such requirements to be relevant applicable requirements to evaluate in a redesignation. For example, the requirement to submit state plans addressing interstate transport obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state, and thus are not applicable requirements to be evaluated in the redesignation context.
EPA has applied this interpretation consistently in many redesignations for decades. See
We have reviewed the Indiana SIP and determined that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110 of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Indiana's SIP addressing section 110 requirements (including provisions addressing lead), at 40 CFR 52.770.
On December 12, 2011, Indiana submitted a request for EPA to approve “infrastructure SIP” elements for the lead NAAQS required under CAA section 110(a)(2). EPA approved the Indiana lead infrastructure SIP on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713).
EPA has determined that upon approval of the base year emissions inventory discussed in this rulemaking, the Indiana SIP will meet the requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation under part D of the CAA for the Muncie lead nonattainment area. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the general nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas.
Section 172(c) sets out general nonattainment plan requirements. A thorough discussion of these requirements can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) (“General Preamble”). EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not “applicable” for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the General Preamble, EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining a standard.
EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a determination of attainment, published in the
As noted above, additional section 172(c) attainment planning requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating the state's redesignation request. The reasonable further progress (RFP) requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, and section 172(c)(6)'s requirement that the SIP contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard, are not applicable requirements that Indiana must meet here because the Muncie area has monitored attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. Indiana submitted a 2013 base year emissions inventory along with their redesignation request on April 14, 2016, and requested that the 2013 inventory be used as the most accurate and current inventory. As discussed below in section III(C), EPA is approving the 2013 attainment year inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3) emissions inventory requirement for the Muncie area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA approved Indiana's current NSR program on October 7, 1994 (59 FR 51114). In addition, the state's maintenance plan does not rely on nonattainment NSR, therefore having a fully approved NSR program is not an applicable requirement, but that, nonetheless, we have approved the state's program.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we find that the Indiana SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities, including highway and transit projects, conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIPs. The requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans, programs and projects developed, funded or approved under title 23 of the U.S. Code and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to all other Federally-supported or funded projects (general conformity). In light of the elimination of lead additives in gasoline, transportation conformity does not apply to the lead NAAQS. See
Upon final approval of Indiana's comprehensive 2013 emissions inventories for the Muncie lead area, EPA will have fully approved the Indiana SIP for the Muncie area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation, in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request. See Calcagni Memorandum at (3);
In today's action, EPA is approving Indiana's 2013 emissions inventories for the Muncie area as meeting the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. No Muncie area SIP provisions are currently disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. Therefore, the Administrator has fully approved the applicable requirements for the Muncie area under section 110(k) in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
EPA believes that Indiana has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Muncie area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions. The only stationary source of lead in the Muncie area is the Exide Technologies facility. According to Indiana this source complies with EPA's January 5, 2012 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelting at 40 CFR part 63, subpart X. According to Indiana, Exide Technologies complied with this NESHAP through the installation of control technologies and adoption of recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are also located in Title 326, Articles 15 and 20 of the Indiana Administrative Code (80 FR 42393).
In conjunction with Indiana's request to redesignate the Muncie nonattainment area to attainment status, Indiana has submitted a SIP revision to provide for maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS in the area through 2030.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the required elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after EPA approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan which demonstrates that attainment will continue to be maintained for 10 years following the initial ten-year maintenance period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures with a schedule for implementation as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future lead violations.
The September 4, 1992, Calcagni memorandum provides additional guidance on the content of a maintenance plan. The memorandum states that a maintenance plan should address the following items: The attainment emissions inventory, a maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for the 10 years of the maintenance period, a commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network, factors and procedures to be used for verification of continued attainment of the NAAQS, and a contingency plan to prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
Section 175A of the CAA requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of 10 years following redesignation.” Calcagni memorandum at 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni memorandum at 9-10.
As discussed in detail in the section below, the state's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the area's emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2030, more than 10 years after redesignation.
Indiana developed an emissions inventory for lead for 2013, one of the years in the period during which the Muncie area monitored attainment of the 2008 lead standard. The attainment level of emissions is summarized in Table 2 below along with future maintenance projections.
Along with the redesignation request, Indiana submitted a revision to its lead SIP to include a maintenance plan for the Muncie area, as required by section 175A of the CAA. Indiana's plan demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 lead standard through 2030 by showing that current and future emissions of lead in the area remain at or below attainment year emission levels. Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of 10 years following redesignation.” Calcagni memorandum at 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni memorandum at 9-10.
Indiana's plan demonstrates maintenance of the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 by showing that current and future emissions of lead for the area will not cause an exceedance of the standard. For the baseline and attainment year inventories, Indiana used Exide Technologies' actual emissions instead of allowable emissions under Indiana Administrative Code. As shown in Table 2, Indiana's submittal indicates that the 2010 and 2013 inventories are based on actual emissions from the Exide Technologies facility (which were 0.82 tons per year (tpy) in 2010 and 0.63 tpy in 2013), and not the allowable emissions set forth in Exide Technologies' operating permit (which were 3.48 tpy in 2010 and 1.73 tpy in 2013). Indiana submitted computer-modeled data indicating that the 2030 maintenance inventory, which is based on the facility's allowable emissions with controls implemented to meet the NESHAP for secondary lead smelting, will ensure that the Muncie area continues to maintain the standard through 2030. To meet the NESHAP for secondary lead smelters, Exide Technologies facility's main building serves as a total enclosure that maintains negative air pressure at all times and is vented to control devices designed to capture lead particulate emissions. This ensures fugitive dust generated inside the facility is not released outside the enclosure and into the ambient air. Since these controls have been installed at the facility, the monitored design value concentrations at the site have been and should remain below the 2008 lead NAAQS. Indiana expects that these permanent and enforceable controls installed at Exide Technologies will ensure that there will be no exceedances of the lead NAAQS in the future. With no other significant sources of lead, the Muncie area is predicted to stay below the standard.
Indiana's maintenance plan includes a commitment to continue to operate its EPA-approved monitoring network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS. Indiana currently operates one lead monitor in the Muncie, Indiana area.
Indiana remains obligated to continue to quality-assure monitoring data and enter all data into the Air Quality System (AQS) in accordance with Federal guidelines. Indiana will use these data, supplemented with additional information as necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard. Indiana will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (67 FR 39602, June 10, 2002) to track future levels of emissions. Both of these actions will help to verify continued attainment in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.
The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment.
Indiana's contingency plan defines a warning level and action level response. The warning level response will trigger when a lead monitor three-month rolling average exceeds 0.143 μg/m
Currently, no new sources of lead are projected for the Muncie area, so all control measures would be determined after an analysis of the situation but could include further controls on fugitive lead emissions, reduction of operating hours, or improved housekeeping and maintenance. Indiana commits to continue implementing SIP requirements upon and after redesignation.
EPA believes that Indiana's contingency measures, as well as the commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
As required by section 175A(b) of the CAA, Indiana commits to submit to the EPA an updated lead maintenance plan eight years after redesignation of the Muncie area to cover an additional 10-year period beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period.
For all of the reasons set forth above, EPA is approving Indiana's 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Muncie area as meeting the requirements of CAA section 175A.
As discussed above, section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires areas to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory including all lead sources in the nonattainment area. In its April 14, 2016
EPA believes that the 2010, 2013, and 2030 emissions inventories are complete and accurate, and meet the requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). The inventories are shown in Table 3.
EPA is taking several actions related to the redesignation of the Muncie area to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. First, EPA is finding that Indiana meets the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the Muncie area to attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is thus approving Indiana's request to change the designation of the Muncie area from nonattainment to attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
In addition, EPA is approving Indiana's lead maintenance plan for the Muncie area as a revision to the Indiana SIP. Finally, EPA is approving the 2013 lead attainment year emission inventory which satisfies the requirement in section 172(c)(3) for a current, accurate and comprehensive emission inventory.
We are publishing these actions without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action 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).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
(f) Approval—Indiana's 2008 lead emissions inventory for the Muncie area, as submitted on April 14, 2016, satisfying the emission inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for the Muncie area.
(g) Approval—The 2008 lead maintenance plan for the Muncie, Indiana nonattainment area has been approved as submitted on April 14, 2016.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission commences the process of migrating away from using P.O. Boxes (“Lockboxes”) to collect application and regulatory fees, as well as paper filings. As the Commission gravitates toward an all-electronic payment and filing system, the P.O. Boxes once established to collect filings and fees via check or money order will be gradually closed, and the Commission's rules changed accordingly. In this, the first step of this process, the Commission amends its rules to close P.O. Box 979092, used to collect petitions filed under of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), as well as associated fee payments. Permittees wishing to file future petitions will need to do so electronically through the Commission's electronic filing system and pay the pertinent fees through the Fee Filer Online System, or through another electronic payment mechanism designated by the Commission.
Effective June 29, 2017.
Warren Firschein, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0844.
1. In this
2. Enacted in 1994, CALEA was designed to respond to advances in technology and eliminate obstacles faced by law enforcement personnel in conducting electronic surveillance.
3. The Commission has started to migrate away from using P.O. Boxes
4. As part of this effort, we are closing P.O. Box 979092. With this
5. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
6.
7.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.
Remit filings and/or payment for these services electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system, in accordance with the procedures set forth on the Commission's Web site,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS hereby amends the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) regulations to eliminate provisions that no longer meet the needs of CCF participants, and to simplify and clarify the regulations to better implement the purposes of the underlying statute. These amendments eliminate the minimum cost for reconstruction projects, requirements for minimum annual deposits and the requirement that any vessel acquired with CCF funds must be reconstructed, regardless of vessel condition. The new regulations also prohibit withdrawals of funds under the CCF program (program) for projects that increase harvesting capacity, unless the project is subject to a limited access system in which the fisheries management authority establishes harvesting limits.
Effective June 29, 2017.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/FRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained from Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: Capital Construction Fund Rulemaking, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by calling Richard VanGorder (see
Send comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule to Richard VanGorder at the address specified above and also to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer) or email to
Richard VanGorder at 301-427-8784 or via email at
This final rule revises and replaces the CCF regulations found at 50 CFR part 259.
The program was established by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 (MMA), ch. 858, title VI, sec. 607(a), 49 Stat. 2005 (1936) (current version at 46 U.S.C. 53503 (2007) and is administered pursuant to 50 CFR part 259.
The purpose of the program is to assist owners and operators of United States flagged vessels in accumulating the large amount of capital necessary for the modernization of the U.S. merchant marine fleet. The extensive vessel reconstruction requirements in the current regulations no longer make sense given the improved status of the merchant marine fleet.
The program encourages construction, reconstruction, or acquisition of vessels through deferment of Federal income taxes. Owners and operators of vessels deposit income from fishing into CCF accounts prior to paying income taxes. All deferred taxes are eventually recovered upon the sale of the vessel because the cost basis of the vessel is reduced by the dollar amount of CCF funds used for its purchase or improvements.
To participate in the program, a vessel owner submits an application to the Financial Services Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service in advance of the relevant Federal tax filing due date. The application identifies the income earning vessel(s), the type of project(s) anticipated, and the financial institution that will hold the CCF deposits. Once the Secretary of Commerce deems an application compliant with the CCF statute and regulations, a CCF Agreement is executed between the United States and the vessel owner or operator.
Currently, there are 1,394 CCF Agreements with a total of approximately $270M on deposit. Many of these CCF Agreements were established years ago and identify scheduled projects that are no longer viable. Consequently, CCF participants are faced with either having funds languish on deposit for nonviable scheduled projects or making a non-qualified withdrawal of funds and paying deferred taxes at the highest marginal rate.
The authority to make regulatory changes to the program is granted under 46 U.S.C. 53502(a), which permits the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations (except for the determination of tax liability) to carry out the program. The program regulations were last amended in 1997 to permit reconstruction projects for safety improvements.
The changes to the CCF regulations are intended to ease the current restrictions on the allowable uses of CCF funds while remaining consistent with current agency priorities of maintaining sustainable fisheries. For example, currently, reconstruction is required when using CCF funds to
The proposed rule (79 FR 57496, September 25, 2014) solicited public comments through November 10, 2014. During the comment period, NMFS received comments from eight individuals and twenty-six entities. The twenty-six entities include companies that currently participate in the CCF program, CCF representatives, trade associations and environmental groups. Most individuals and entities made multiple comments in one document. Comments were generally in favor of the changes made in the proposed rule but many expressed concerns over certain provisions. The specific comments and our responses are as follows.
1. Revises § 259.31(a) (redesignated § 259.3(a)) to eliminate the requirement that the Agreement holder reconstruct a used vessel acquired with CCF funds. This permits the acquisition of a used vessel without requiring that it be reconstructed;
2. Revises § 259.31(b) (redesignated § 259.3(c)) to eliminate the requirement that the minimum cost of a reconstruction project be the lesser of $100,000 or 20% of the reconstructed vessel's acquisition cost. This provision eliminates making excessive capital improvements to vessels based upon an arbitrary amount. Instead, program participants will use the CCF to spend what is needed to improve the vessel. It also removes § 259.31(b)(2) because it was tied to the now eliminated minimum cost requirement;
3. Revises § 259.31(b)(1) (redesignated § 259.4(a)) to add material increases in safety, reliability, or energy efficiency to the list of qualified reconstruction items.
4. Eliminates the requirement in § 259.34(a) that the Agreement holder annually make a minimum deposit of 2% of the anticipated cost of the scheduled Agreement objectives. The Final rule also eliminates the minimum cost requirement in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of § 259.34. This change is consistent with our attempt to reduce the amount of CCF funds on deposit by not requiring excess deposits to meet an annual deposit requirement;
5. Removes § 259.32 pertaining to “Conditional Fisheries.” “Conditional Fisheries” regulations were part of the Financial Aid Program Procedures
Sections are redesignated as necessary due to these changes.
In addition to the changes easing restrictions on CCF projects, program regulations are amended as follows for purposes of simplicity, clarity, and brevity:
1. A Definitions section is added (new § 259.1);
2. Existing § 259.1 is removed because it deals only with deposits for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1969, and before January 1, 1972, and no such deposits remain;
3. Section 259.30 is redesignated as § 259.2. Section 259.2(b)(1) adds the requirement that the application for an Agreement include the name and Tax Identification Number of the applicant, pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 3701,
4. Section 259.3(a) simplifies “Acquisition” requirements by removing the existing requirements when acquiring a used vessel;
5. Section 259.3(b) is a new section pertaining specifically to “Construction,” which had been omitted as a separate section in the previous regulations;
6. Section 259.3(c) replaces old § 259.31(b), and simplifies the requirements related to “Reconstruction” by incorporating the relevant language regarding energy and safety improvements from the deleted Sections 259.31(d) and (e);
7. Section 259.33 is redesignated as § 259.4;
8. Section 259.34 is redesignated as § 259.5 and eliminates the minimum deposit requirement;
9. Section 259.6 is added to provide for termination of inactive accounts and accounts with zero balances on deposit, and to detail the notification procedures and time limit for resolving Agreement deficiencies to avoid termination;
10. Section 259.35 is redesignated as § 259.7, and the requirement to submit a preliminary deposit and withdrawal report at the end of each calendar year is removed, because the preliminary report no longer serves a useful purpose and is not required by the Internal Revenue Service;
11. Section 259.36 is redesignated § 259.8, and provisions relating to non-cash deposits or investments are dropped because they have never occurred;
12. Section 259.37 is redesignated as § 259.9; and
13. Section 259.38 is redesignated as § 259.10.
This final rule is published under the authority of, and is consistent with, Chapter 535 of the MMA. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for this final rule. The assessment discusses the impact of this final rule on the natural and human environment and integrates a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). NMFS will send the assessment, the review and analysis to anyone who requests a copy (see
NMFS prepared a FRFA, under section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe the economic impacts this final rule has on small entities. The analysis aided us in considering regulatory alternatives that could minimize the economic consequences on affected small entities. The final rule does not duplicate or conflict with other Federal regulations.
The RFA defines a “small business” as having the same meaning as a “small business concern” which is defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (SBA). 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Additionally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of fewer than 50,000. 5 U.S.C. 601(5). As defined in the RFA, the small entities that this rule may affect include vessel owners, vessel operators, fish dealers, individual fishermen, small corporations, others engaged in commercial and recreational activities regulated by NOAA and native Alaskan governmental jurisdictions. In addition, the rule affects some larger businesses.
Because the CCF is a voluntary program that provides tax deferred benefits to qualified applicants, we assume that newly participating entities large or small will not be negatively impacted by this rule. For current participants, the changes allow more flexibility in the use of the funds and, therefore, will only positively affect those entities.
The small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing is $11 million in annual gross receipts (see 50 CFR part 200.2(a)). Most of the 1,394 participants in the program, all of who are fishers, have annual gross revenues of less than $11 million, and are thus considered to be small entities. However, analysts cannot quantify the exact number of small entities that may choose to participate in the program and be directly regulated by this action, the net effects are expected to be positive relative to the status quo.
Because the new regulations merely simplify existing CCF regulations and policies, this action does not create new reporting requirements for small entities participating in the CCF. Although the CCF requires certain supporting documentation during the life of the Agreement, the CCF's requirements do not impose unusual burdens. Those supporting documents are usually within the normal business records already maintained by small business entities, and include income tax returns, tax basis schedules, vessel ownership documents, etc. Depending on circumstances, the CCF may require other supporting documents that can be acquired at reasonable cost if they are not already available. We estimate it will take small entities fewer than 3.5 hours per application to meet these requirements.
Because participation is voluntary and requires an average of 3.5 hours to prepare an application, all CCF applicants are assumed to have made a determination that they will incur a benefit by participating in the program. Consequently, it is assumed that the CCF's tax deferrals provide a positive economic impact. Importantly, the CCF does not regulate or manage the affairs of its program users, and the regulations impose no additional compliance obligations, operating costs or any other costs on small entities that did not exist in the original regulations.
Because these regulations impose no significant costs on any small entities, but rather provide small and large entities with benefits, negative economic impacts on small entities, if any, are expected to be minimal at worst. The impact is likely to be positive. Accordingly, we have determined this rule does not substantially impact a significant number of small businesses.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This final rule contains no new collection of information requirements subject to the PRA. Existing collections have been approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 0648-0041. This collection includes the Deposit/Withdrawal Report, the Interim Capital Construction Fund Agreement and Certificate. The estimate of the annual total program public reporting burden for the Deposit/Withdrawal report is 1,200 hours. This equates to an average of less than 1 hour of annual reporting burden per program user. The estimates of the annual total program public reporting burden for the Interim Capital Construction Fund Agreement and Certificate is 2,250 hours. This equates to an average of 1 hour of annual reporting burden per existing program user and 3.5 hours of reporting burden for new applicants to the CCF program. The response time estimates above include the time needed for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and revising the collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden hour estimates, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to both NMFS and OMB (see
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this final rule does not affect the coastal zone of any state.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS, determined that this final rule does not affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat.
This final rule does not contain policies with federalism implications under E.O. 13132.
Fisheries, Fishing vessels, Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR Chapter II by revising part 259 to read as follows:
46 U.S.C. 53501, formerly 46 U.S.C. App. 1177 and 1177-1.
As used in this part:
(1) A vessel—
(i) Constructed in the United States (and, if reconstructed, reconstructed in the United States), constructed outside of the United States but documented under the laws of the United States on April 15, 1970, or constructed outside the United States for use in the United States foreign trade pursuant to a contract made before April 15, 1970;
(ii) Documented under the laws of the United States if 5 net tons or greater; and
(iii) Operated in the foreign or domestic commerce of the United States or in the fisheries of the United States; and
(2) A commercial fishing vessel or vessel which will carry fishing parties for hire—
(i) Constructed in the United States and, if reconstructed, reconstructed in the United States;
(ii) State registered if at least 2 net tons but fewer than 5 net tons or Documented under the laws of the United States if 5 net tons or greater;
(iii) Owned by a citizen of the United States;
(iv) Having its home port in the United States; and
(v) Operated in the commercial fisheries of the United States.
(1) A vessel—
(i) Constructed in the United States (and, if reconstructed, reconstructed in the United States), constructed outside of the United States but documented under the laws of the United States on April 15, 1970, or constructed outside the United States for use in the United States foreign trade pursuant to a contract made before April 15, 1970;
(ii) Documented under the laws of the United States if 5 net tons or greater; and
(iii) Agreed, between the Secretary and the person maintaining the capital construction fund established under 46 U.S.C. 53503, to be operated in the fisheries of the United States; and
(2) A commercial fishing vessel or vessel which will carry fishing parties for hire—
(i) Constructed in the United States and, if reconstructed, reconstructed in the United States;
(ii) State registered if at least 2 net tons but fewer than 5 net tons or Documented under the laws of the United States if 5 net tons or greater;
(iii) Owned by a citizen of the United States;
(iv) Having its home port in the United States; and
(v) Operated in the commercial fisheries of the United States; and
(3) Gear which is permanently fixed to the vessel. The expenditure for gear and certain nets which are not fixed to the vessel (pots, traps, longline, seine nets, gill set nets and gill drift nets) is excluded from the amount eligible for qualified withdrawals of CCF funds.
(a)
(1) Be a citizen of the United States (citizenship requirements are those necessary for documenting vessels in the coastwise trade within the meaning of section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended);
(2) Own or lease one or more eligible vessels (as defined at 46 U.S.C. 53501) operating in the foreign or domestic commerce of the United States;
(3) Have an acceptable plan to acquire, construct, or reconstruct one or more qualified vessels (as defined at 46 U.S.C. 53501). The plan must be a firm representation of the applicant's actual intentions. Qualified vessels must be for commercial operation in the fisheries of the United States. If the vessel is 5 net tons or over, it must be documented with a fishery trade endorsement. Dual documentation in both the fisheries and the coastwise trade of the United States is permissible. Any vessel which will carry fishing parties for hire must be inspected and certified (under 46 CFR part 176) by the U.S. Coast Guard as qualified to carry more than six passengers. If the vessel weighs fewer than 5 net tons the party must demonstrate to the Secretary's satisfaction that the carrying of fishing parties for hire will constitute its primary activity.
(b)
(1) Name and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of applicant;
(2) Proof of U.S. citizenship;
(3) The first taxable year for which the Agreement is to apply (see § 259.4 for the latest time at which applications for an Agreement relating to the previous taxable year may be received);
(4) The following information regarding each
(i) Name of vessel,
(ii) Official number or, in the case of vessels weighing under 5 net tons, the State registration number, where required,
(iii) Type of vessel (
(iv) General characteristics (
(v) Whether it is owned or leased and, if leased, the name of the owner, and a copy of the lease,
(vi) Date and place of construction,
(vii) If reconstructed, date of redelivery and place of reconstruction,
(viii) Trade (or trades) in which the vessel is documented and date last documented,
(ix) The fishery of operation (which in this section means each species or group of species). Each species must be specifically identified by the acceptable common names of fish, shellfish, or other living marine resources which each vessel catches, processes, or transports or will catch, process, or transport for commercial purposes such as marketing or processing the catch),
(x) The area of operation (which for fishing vessels means the general geographic areas in which each vessel will catch, process, or transport, or charter for each species or group of species of fish, shellfish, or other living marine resources),
(5) The specific objectives to be achieved by the accumulation of assets in a Capital Construction Fund (to be incorporated in Schedule B of the Agreement) including:
(i) Number of vessels,
(ii) Type of vessel (
(iii) General characteristics (
(iv) Cost of projects,
(v) Amount of indebtedness to be paid for vessels to be constructed, acquired, or reconstructed (all notes, mortgages, or other evidence of indebtedness must be submitted as soon as available, together with sufficient additional evidence to establish that full proceeds of the indebtedness to be paid from a CCF account under an Agreement, were used solely for the purpose of the construction, acquisition, or reconstruction of Schedule B vessels),
(vi) Date of construction, acquisition, or reconstruction,
(vii) Fishery of operation (which in this section means each species or group of species must be specifically identified by acceptable common name of fish, shellfish, or other living marine resources), and
(viii) Area of operation (which in this section means the general geographic areas in which each vessel will operate for each species or group of species of fish, shellfish, or other living marine resources),
(c)
CCF funds cannot be used for any vessel acquisition, construction, or reconstruction that increases harvesting capacity in a fishery or fisheries, other than in a limited access system in which the fisheries management authority establishes harvesting limits.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1) All qualified deposits and expenditures occurring within the period specified directly above, that are within the eligible ceilings specified at 46 U.S.C. 53505, may be consented to by the Secretary as constructive deposits and withdrawals. In order for the Secretary to provide his or her consent for constructive deposit and withdrawal treatment, the applicant must include a written request with the application and provide sufficient supporting data to enable the Secretary to evaluate the request. This written request must be submitted no later than the “Extension Period” for that party's initial tax year.
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(c)
(1) It is in the applicant's best interest to submit his or her written application at least 45 days in advance of the end of his or her tax due date. If the written application is submitted too close to the tax due date, and the Secretary is not ultimately able to execute the Agreement, the applicant must bear the burden of negotiating with the Internal Revenue Service for relief. The Secretary shall regard any penalties related to this denied application as due to the applicant's failure to apply for an Agreement in a timely manner.
(2) [Reserved]
(d)
(1) The Secretary may ratify, as qualified, any withdrawal made without the Secretary's prior consent, provided the withdrawal would have resulted in the Secretary's consent had it been requested before withdrawal.
(2) The Secretary may issue his or her retroactive consent, if appropriate, as work priorities permit. However, if the Secretary is unable to issue retroactive consent for withdrawals made without his or her consent, then those withdrawals, and any associated penalties, will be deemed due to the party's failure to apply in a timely manner.
(3) It is recommended that a party submit his or her request for withdrawal at least 45 days in advance of the expected date of withdrawal. Withdrawals made without the Secretary's consent, in reliance on obtaining the Secretary's consent, are made purely at a party's own risk. Should any withdrawal made without the Secretary's consent prove, for any reason, to be one which the Secretary will not or cannot consent to ratify, then the result will be an unqualified withdrawal and/or an involuntary termination of the Agreement.
(4) Should a party withdraw CCF funds for a project not previously deemed an eligible Schedule B objective without having first obtained the Secretary's consent, the Secretary may entertain an application to amend the Agreement's Schedule B objectives as the prerequisite to consenting by ratification to the withdrawal.
(5) Redeposit of any withdrawals made without the Secretary's consent, and for which such consent is not subsequently given (either by ratification or otherwise), shall not be permitted. If the non-qualified withdrawal adversely affects the
(a) Other than the maximum annual ceilings established by the Act, the Secretary shall not establish an annual ceiling. However, deposits can no longer be made once a party has deposited 100 percent of the anticipated cost of all Schedule B objectives unless the Agreement is then amended to establish additional Schedule B objectives.
(b) Ordinarily, the Secretary shall permit deposits to accumulate prior to commencement of any given Schedule B objective for a maximum of ten years. However, at the Secretary's sole discretion and based on good and sufficient cause shown, the time period may be extended.
(a) If a Schedule B objective has not commenced within 10 years from the date the Agreement was established, and has not been extended by written approval of the Secretary, the Agreement is considered inactive and subject to termination.
(b) If the account balance of all depositories of an Agreement is zero dollars 10 years after the date it was established, and has not been extended through amendment, the Agreement is considered inactive and subject to termination unless its Schedule B objective has commenced.
(c) A certified letter will be sent to holders of Agreements identified for termination informing them that the agreement will terminate 60 days after the date of the letter unless the deficiencies identified in the letter are addressed.
(a) The Secretary will require from each party an annual deposit and withdrawal report for each CCF depository. Failure to submit such reports may be cause for involuntary termination of the party's Agreement.
(1) A final deposit and withdrawal report at the end of the tax year, which shall be submitted not later than 30 days after expiration of the due date, for filing the party's Federal income tax return. The report must be made on a form prescribed by the Secretary using a separate form for each CCF depository.
(2) Each report must bear a certification that the deposit and withdrawal information given includes all annual deposit and withdrawal activity for each CCF depository. Negative reports must be submitted in those cases where there is no deposit and/or withdrawal activity.
(b) The Secretary, at his or her discretion, may, after due notice, disqualify withdrawals and/or involuntarily terminate the Agreement for the participant's failure to submit the required annual deposit and withdrawal reports.
(c) Additionally, each party shall submit, not later than 30 days after expiration of the party's tax due date, a copy of the party's Federal Income Tax Return filed with IRS for the preceding tax year. Failure to submit the Federal Income Tax Return shall, after due notice, be cause for the same adverse action specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Secretary may conditionally consent to the qualification of a withdrawal. This consent is conditioned upon the timely submission, to the Secretary, of the items requested by the Secretary in the withdrawal approval letter. Failure to provide these items in a timely manner, and after due notice, will result in nonqualification of the withdrawal and/or involuntary termination of the Agreement.
(a) Wherever the Secretary prescribes time constraints, the postmark date shall control if mailed. If a private delivery service is used, including Federal Express or United Parcel Service, the date listed on the label shall control. Submission of CCF transactions by email or facsimile is only allowable when an original signature is not required.
(b) All CCF information received by the Secretary shall be held strictly confidential to the extent permitted by law, except that it may be published or disclosed in statistical form provided such publication does not disclose, directly or indirectly, the identity of the fund holder.
(c) While recognizing that precise regulations are necessary in order to treat similarly situated parties similarly, the Secretary also realizes that precision in regulations can sometimes cause inequitable effects to result from unavoidable, unintended, or minor discrepancies between the regulations and the circumstances they attempt to govern. The Secretary will, consequently, at his or her discretion, as a matter of privilege and not as a matter of right, attempt to afford relief to parties where literal application of the purely procedural, as opposed to substantive, aspects of these regulations would otherwise work an inequitable hardship. This privilege will be sparingly granted and no party should act in reliance on its being granted.
(d) These §§ 259.1 through 259.10 are applicable to all Agreements first entered into (or amended) on or after the date these sections are adopted.
(e) These §§ 259.1 through 259.10 are specifically incorporated in all Agreements existing prior to the date these sections are adopted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; area closure.
This action closes the American Plaice Trimester Total Allowable Catch Area to Northeast multispecies common pool vessels fishing with trawl gear for the remainder of Trimester 1, through August 31, 2017. The closure is required by regulation because the common pool fishery has caught 90 percent of its Trimester 1 quota for American plaice. This closure is intended to prevent an overage of the common pool's quota for this stock.
This action is effective May 24, 2017, through August 31, 2017.
Reid Lichwell, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9112.
Federal regulations at § 648.82(n)(2)(ii) require the Regional Administrator to close a common pool Trimester Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Area for a stock when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC is projected to be caught. The closure applies to all common pool vessels fishing with gear capable of catching that stock for the remainder of the trimester.
As of May 21, 2017, the common pool fishery caught approximately 90 percent of the Trimester 1 TAC (5.2 mt) for American plaice. Effective May 24, 2017, the American plaice Trimester TAC Area is closed for the remainder of Trimester 1, through August 31, 2017, to all common pool vessels on a Northeast multispecies day-at-sea fishing with trawl gear. The American Plaice Trimester TAC Area consists of statistical areas 512, 513, 514, 515, 521, 522, and 525. The area reopens at the beginning of Trimester 2 on September 1, 2017.
If a vessel declared its trip through the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) or the interactive voice response system, and crossed the VMS demarcation line prior to May 24, 2017, it may complete its trip within the Trimester TAC Area.
Any overage of the Trimester 1 or 2 TACs must be deducted from the Trimester 3 TAC. If the common pool fishery exceeds its total quota for a stock in the 2017 fishing year, the overage must be deducted from the common pool's quota for that stock for fishing year 2018. Any uncaught portion of the Trimester 1 and Trimester 2 TACs is carried over into the next trimester. However, any uncaught portion of the common pool's total annual quota may not be carried over into the following fishing year.
Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery are on our Web site at:
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The regulations require the Regional Administrator to close a trimester TAC area to the common pool fishery when 90 percent of the Trimester TAC for a stock has been caught. Updated catch information only recently became available indicating that the common pool fishery has caught 90 percent of its Trimester 1 TAC for American plaice as of May 21, 2017, and 100 percent of the TAC will likely be caught by May 23. The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would prevent the immediate closure of the American Plaice Trimester 1 TAC Area. This increases the likelihood that the common pool fishery will exceed its annual quota of American plaice to the detriment of this stock, which could undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Additionally, an overage of the trimester or annual common pool quotas could cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery as a result of overage paybacks deducted from a future trimester or fishing year.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Capital Planning Commission
Proposed rule; public meetings.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) proposes to adopt new regulations governing NCPC's implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Federal agencies and NCPC on behalf of non-federal agencies must comply with the requirements of NEPA and CEQ regulations for projects submitted to the Commission for review and approval.
Submit comments on or before July 14, 2017. Public meetings to discuss the proposed Policies and Procedures will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017 from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. and Thursday, June 15, 2017 from 9:30 a.m.-11:00 a.m. Both meetings will be held at the National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20004.
You may submit written comments on the proposed Policies and Procedures by either of the methods listed below.
1.
2.
Anne R. Schuyler, General Counsel at 202-482-7223 or
The current regulation are published on the NCPC Web site at the following location:
NCPC's current NEPA procedures were adopted in 2004 and generally remain appropriate and effective. However certain portions of the existing policies and procedures require revision to simplify, streamline, and improve the effectiveness of NCPC's process for complying with NEPA.
One of the most significant changes incorporated into the proposed Environmental Policies and Procedures (Policies and Procedures) is the elimination of procedures for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In 2004, when it adopted its current regulations, NCPC opted to issue combined NEPA and the NHPA regulations to ensure coordinated implementation of both procedures. However, regulations promulgated by the ACHP do not require agencies to adopt agency specific processes and procedures. Instead ACHP regulations establish the processes and procedures all federal agencies must follow. This resulted in the inclusion of duplicative information in NCPC's current policies and procedures. While this information proved helpful, it diverted attention away from NCPC's agency specific NEPA policies and procedures mandated by CEQ. Accordingly, the proposed Policies and Procedures delete detailed references to Section 106 consultation procedures. They do retain references to coordination between NEPA and NHPA and consideration of historic resources in the NEPA process.
To clarify roles and responsibilities, the proposed Policies and Procedures distinguish between federal agency applicants and non-federal agency applicants. Federal agency applicants include cabinet level departments and executive agencies such as the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). Non-federal agency applicants include, without limitation, the Smithsonian Institution, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery of Art, the US Institute of Peace, the Government of the District of Columbia, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) and private parties implementing projects on federal land. NCPC's jurisdiction extends to non-federal agency applicants when they undertake projects on federally-owned land. Under the proposed Policies and Procedures, NCPC serves as lead agency when the applicant is a non-federal agency. While this deviates from current practice, the proposal ensures NCPC a prominent role in the NEPA process and the ability to ensure consideration of its views.
The proposed Policies and Procedures also alter the timing and sequencing of an applicant's submission of NEPA documentation for applications governed by the National Capital Planning Act and the Commemorative Works Act. Under the current regulations, an applicant must complete the NEPA process at the time of preliminary review. Under the proposed regulations, an applicant must complete its NEPA process at the time of final review. This revised approach allows the Commission an opportunity to provide input on a project when it is still in the developmental phase. It also provides a NEPA sequencing consistent with federal agency project development schedules. This eliminates the pressure on federal agency applicants to expedite its NEPA process to meet NCPC's current sequencing policies.
NCPC also proposes several changes to its list of projects eligible for application of a CATEX. NCPC proposes to eliminate three existing CATEXs because they are based on old, antiquated authorities which have little to no relationship to NCPC's present day review roles. NCPC proposes to add four
By Memorandum dated October 12, 1993 from Sally Katzen, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Agencies, OMB rendered the NCPC exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (See, Appendix A of cited Memorandum). Nonetheless, NCPC endeavors to adhere to the provisions of Executive Orders and developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13563. NCPC worked closely with CEQ on the derivation of the proposed Policies and Procedures and intends to work with the land-holding agencies and certain non-federal agencies impacted by these during the public comment period.
By virtue of its exemption from the requirements of EO 12866, NCPC is exemption from this executive order. NCPC confirmed this fact with OIRA.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in costs for individuals, various levels of governments or various regions; and does not have a significant adverse effect on completion, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or the competitiveness of US enterprises with foreign enterprises.
A statement regarding the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required. The proposed rule neither imposes an unfunded mandate of more than $100 million per year nor imposes a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The proposed rule does not substantially and directly affect the relationship between the Federal and state governments.
The General Counsel of NCPC has determined that the proposed rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of Executive Order 12988 3(a) and 3(b)(2).
The proposed rule does not contain information collection requirements, and it does not require a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The proposed rule is of an administrative nature, and its adoption does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NCPC's adoption of the proposed rule will have minimal or no effect on the environment; impose no significant change to existing environmental conditions; and will have no cumulative environmental impacts.
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 12988, and the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998 requires the NCPC to write all rules in plain language. NCPC maintains the proposed rule meets this requirement. Those individuals reviewing the proposed rule who believe otherwise should submit specific comments to the addresses noted above recommending revised language for those provision or portions
Be advised that personal information such as name, address, phone number electronic address, or other identifying personal information contained in a comment may be made publically available. Individuals may ask NCPC to withhold the personal information in their comment, but there is no guarantee the agency can do so.
Environmental Policies and Procedures.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Capital Planning Commission proposes to establish 1 CFR chapter VI, consisting of part 601, to read as follows:
40 CFR 1507.3.
This part establishes rules that supplement the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC or Commission) and its applicants shall follow to ensure:
(a) Compliance with NEPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
(b) Compliance with other laws, regulations, and Executive Orders identified by NCPC as applicable to a particular application.
Consistent with 40 CFR 1500.1 and 1500.2, it shall be the policy of the NCPC to:
(a) Comply with the procedures and policies of NEPA and other related laws, regulations, and orders applicable to Commission actions.
(b) Provide applicants sufficient guidance to ensure plans and projects comply with the rules of this part and other laws, regulations, and orders applicable to Commission actions.
(c) Integrate NEPA into its decision-making process at the earliest possible stage.
(d) Integrate the requirements of NEPA and other planning and environmental reviews required by law including, without limitation, the National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. 306108 (NHPA), to ensure all such procedures run concurrently.
(e) Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects on the quality of the human environment in the National Capital Region.
(f) Use all practicable means to protect, restore, and enhance the quality of the human environment including built and socioeconomic environments and historic properties within the National Capital Region.
(g) Streamline the NEPA process and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to the maximum extent possible.
(h) Use the NEPA process to foster meaningful public involvement in NCPC decisions.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) A Federal Agency applicant shall serve as the Lead Agency and prepare an EA or an EIS for:
(1) An application that requires Commission approval; and
(2) An application submitted for action on a master plan that includes future projects that require Commission approval; provided that:
(i) The applicant intends to submit individual projects covered by the master plan to the Commission within five years of the date of Commission action on the master plan; and
(ii) The applicant intends to use the master plan EA or EIS to satisfy its NEPA obligation for specific projects referenced in the master plan.
(b) At the sole discretion of the Executive Director, and unless determined otherwise, NCPC shall serve as Lead Agency and prepare and EA or and EIS for:
(1) An application submitted by a Non-federal Agency that requires Commission approval;
(2) An application submitted by a Non-federal Agency for action on a master plan that includes future projects that require Commission approval; provided that:
(i) The Non-federal Agency applicant intends to submit individual projects covered by the master plan to the Commission within five years of the date of Commission action on the master plan; and
(ii) The Non-federal Agency applicant intends to use the master plan EA or EIS to satisfy its NEPA obligation for a specific project referenced in the master plan; and
(3) An application for approval of land acquisitions undertaken pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8731-8732.
(a) The obligations of a Federal Agency applicant designated as the Lead Agency in accordance with § 601.4(a) shall include, without limitation, the following:
(1) Act as Lead Agency as defined in 40 CFR 1501.5 for the NEPA process.
(2) Designate NCPC to participate as a Co-lead or Cooperating Agency and consult with Commission staff as early as possible in the planning process to obtain guidance with respect to the goals, objectives, standards, purpose, need, and alternatives for the NEPA analysis.
(3) Invite affected federal, state, regional and local agencies, and other potentially interested parties to participate as a Cooperating Agency in the NEPA process.
(4) Consult with the affected agencies and entities as early as possible in the planning process to obtain guidance on the goals, objectives, standards, purpose, need, and alternatives for the NEPA analysis.
(5) Work with Cooperating Agencies and stakeholders,
(i) Keep them informed on the project schedule and substantive matters; and
(ii) Allow them an opportunity to review and comment within reasonable time frames on, without limitation, Public Scoping notices; technical reports; public materials (including responses to comments received from the public); potential mitigation measures; the draft EA or EIS; and the draft FONSI or ROD.
(6) Prepare the appropriate NEPA Document consistent with the applicant's NEPA regulations, the requirements of this part, and CEQ regulations.
(7) Determine in its NEPA Document whether an action will have an adverse environmental impact or would limit the choice of reasonable alternatives under 40 CFR 1505.1(e) and take appropriate action to ensure that the objectives and procedures of NEPA are achieved.
(8) Prepare, make available for public review, and issue a FONSI or ROD.
(9) Ensure that the draft and final EIS comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 1506.5(c) and include a disclosure statement executed by any contractor (or subcontractor) under contract to prepare the EIS document and that the disclosure appears as an appendix to the EIS.
(10) Compile, maintain, and produce the Administrative Record.
(11) Provide periodic reports on implementation of Mitigation measures to NCPC and other Cooperating Parties consistent with a schedule established in the NEPA Document.
(12) Re-evaluate and update NEPA documents that are five or more years old as measured from the time of their adoption when either or both of the following criteria apply:
(i) There are substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; and
(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information that are relevant to environmental concerns and have a bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
(13) Consult with NCPC on the outcome of the re-evaluation of its NEPA Document; provided that the NCPC reserves the right to make the final determination as to whether a Lead Agency's NEPA document requires updating.
(b) When NCPC serves as Lead Agency in accordance with § 601.4(b), in addition to the obligations listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (12) of this section, NCPC may:
(1) Ask applicants, at its sole discretion, to enter into a MOU. The MOU may be prepared as a programmatic MOU that addresses a uniform approach for the treatment of all applications from a particular applicant or address a specific application. The request to enter into a project specific MOU shall be made after a determination is made as to the inability to utilize a CATEX. A MOU shall specify, without limitation, project information; roles and responsibilities; project timelines and schedules; principal contacts and contact information; and a mechanism for resolving disputes.
(2) Request assistance from a Non-federal Agency applicant with the preparation of a NEPA Document. If requested by NCPC, the assistance shall
(3) Require Non-federal Agency applicants to submit periodic reports on implementation of Mitigation measures to NCPC consistent with a schedule established in the NEPA Document.
(a) In the event of a dispute with a Federal Agency applicant or a Non-federal Agency applicant over Lead Agency status, the parties shall use their best efforts to cooperatively resolve disputes at the working levels of their respective agencies and, if necessary, by escalating such disputes within their respective agencies.
(b) If internal resolution at higher agency levels proves unsuccessful, at NCPC's sole discretion, one of the following actions shall be pursued: the parties shall request CEQ's determination on which agency shall serve as Lead, NCPC shall prepare its own NEPA Document, or NCPC shall decline to take action on the underlying application.
(c) Disputes other than those relating to the designation of Lead Agency status or Cooperating Status as described in § 601.7(b), shall be governed by the requirements of subpart G of this part.
(a) When a Federal Agency applicant serves as the Lead Agency, NCPC shall act as a Cooperating Agency. As a Cooperating Agency, NCPC shall, without limitation, undertake the following:
(1) Act as a Cooperating Agency as described in 40 CFR 1501.6.
(2) Assist in the preparation of and sign a MOU if requested by the Lead Agency. At the lead agency's discretion, the MOU may be prepared as a programmatic MOU that addresses a uniform approach for the treatment of all applications where NCPC serves as a cooperating agency or address a specific application. The request to enter into a project specific MOU shall be made after a determination is made as to the inability to utilize a CATEX.
(3) Participate in the NEPA process by providing comprehensive, timely reviews of and comments on key NEPA materials including, without limitation, Public Scoping notices; technical reports; documents (including responses to comments received from the public); the draft and final EA or EIS; and the FONSI or ROD.
(4) Supply available data, assessments, and other information that may be helpful in the preparation of the NEPA Document or the Administrative Record in a timely manner.
(5) Make an independent evaluation of the Federal Agency applicant's NEPA Document and take responsibility for the scope and contents of the EIS or EA when it is sufficient as required by 40 CFR 1506.5.
(6) Prepare and sign a ROD or FONSI or, if NCPC concurs with the contents of the document, co-sign the Federal Agency's ROD or FONSI.
(7) Provide documentation as requested and as needed by the Lead Agency for the Administrative Record.
(b) In the event a Federal Agency applicant fails to allow NCPC to participate in a meaningful manner as a Cooperating Agency, the parties shall agree to use their best efforts to cooperatively resolve the issue at the working levels of their respective agencies, and, if necessary, by escalating the issue within their respective agencies. If internal resolution at higher agency levels is unsuccessful, NCPC at its sole discretion shall either require the parties to seek mediation, prepare its own NEPA Document either as a stand-alone document or a supplement to the Federal Agency applicant's NEPA Document, or take no action on the underlying application.
(c) When NCPC serves as Lead Agency on behalf of Non-federal Agency applicant, the Non-federal Agency applicant shall serve as a Cooperating Agency and comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) and (7) of this section. Non-federal Agency applicants shall extend all assistance necessary to facilitate NCPC's compliance with NEPA including the provision of funding for consultant services if requested.
(a) Federal Agency and Non-federal Agency applicants shall comply with NEPA for the following types of projects:
(1) Projects requiring Commission approval; and
(2) Master plans requiring Commission action with future projects requiring subsequent Commission approval; provided that:
(i) The applicant intends to submit individual projects depicted in the master plan to the Commission within five years of the date of Commission action on the master plan; and
(ii) The applicant intends to use the master plan EA or EIS to satisfy its NEPA obligation for specific projects referenced in the master plan.
(b) When Federal Agency and Non-federal Agency applicants submit projects of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section, the applicant shall submit the NEPA documentation timed to coincide with the Commission's review stages as set forth in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(i) NCPC is the Lead Agency;
(ii) Emergency Circumstances exist; and
(iii) An Extraordinary Circumstance as set forth in § 601.11 is present that precludes use of a CATEX.
(2) When the three conditions described in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section exist, the Executive Director shall make a determination as to whether the CATEX can or cannot be applied as soon as practicable. If the Executive Director determines a CATEX may not be applied, he/she shall take one of the steps indicated in paragraph (f)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) When Emergency Circumstances render it necessary to take an action that requires an EA before the EA can be competed, the Executive Director shall develop alternative arrangements focused on minimizing environmental impacts of the proposed action. These steps shall follow those normally undertaken for an EA, to include, to the maximum extent practicable, preparation of a document with appropriate content, interagency coordination, and public notification and involvement. The Commission shall grant approval for the alternative arrangement. At the earliest opportunity, the Executive Director shall advise CEQ of the alternative arrangement.
(ii) Where Emergency Circumstances make it necessary for the Commission to take an action with significant environmental impacts without observing the rules of this part and CEQ's regulations, the Executive Director shall advise the Commission of the situation. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, the Executive director shall consult with CEQ regarding alternative arrangements for complying with NEPA.
(a) When, pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, NPS or GSA submits an application to the Commission for approval of a site and design for a commemorative work, the applicant shall be required to comply with NEPA and submit the NEPA documentation timed to coincide with the Commission's review stages as set forth in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section.
(b)
(2) The Commission shall provide comments to NPS or GSA on the multiple sites to assist the applicant in selecting a preferred site.
(c)
(2) The Commission shall provide comments to NPS or GSA on the preferred site(s) and the concept designs for each site to facilitate selection of a preferred site and refinement of the memorial design for that site. The Commission may impose conditions on or establish guidelines for the applicant to follow in preparing its preliminary and final commemorative work design to avoid, minimize or mitigate environmental impacts including adverse effects on historic properties.
(d)
(2) The Commission shall take an appropriate action on the preferred site and preliminary design and provide comments to the applicant on the preliminary design to assist the applicant's preparation of a final design.
(e)
(a) A categorical exclusion is a type of action that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which has been found to have no such effect by NCPC.
(b) Actions that generally qualify for application of a categorical exclusion and do not require either an EA or an EIS exhibit the following characteristics:
(1) Minimal or no effect on the human environment;
(2) No significant change to existing environmental conditions;
(3) No significant cumulative environmental impacts; and
(4) Similarity to actions previously assessed in an EA concluding in a FONSI and monitored to confirm the FONSI.
(a) Before applying a CATEX listed in § 601.12, the Executive Director shall consider whether a project or plan requires additional environmental review or analysis due to the existence of Extraordinary Circumstances. If any of the Extraordinary Circumstances listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this section are present, the Executive Director shall direct staff to undertake a preliminary analysis to determine if the presence of the Extraordinary Circumstances negates the application of a CATEX. If the preliminary analysis determines application of a CATEX is not appropriate, the Executive Director shall see that the proper NEPA Document is prepared and made available to the Commission before the Commission takes action on the matter. If the Extraordinary Circumstance does not negate application of a CATEX, the appropriate CATEX shall be applied and its application documented for the record.
(b) Extraordinary Circumstances that may negate the application of a CATEX include:
(1) A reasonable likelihood of significant impact on public health or safety.
(2) A reasonable likelihood of significant environmental impacts on sensitive resources unless the impact has been resolved through another processes to include, without limitation, Section 106 of the NHPA. Environmentally sensitive resources include without limitation:
(i) Proposed federally listed, threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitats.
(ii) Properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
(iii) Areas having special designation or recognition based on federal law or an Executive Order, to include without limitation, National Historic Landmarks, floodplains, wetlands, and National Parks.
(iv) Cultural, scientific or historic resources.
(3) A reasonable likelihood of effects on the environment that are risky, highly uncertain, or unique.
(4) A reasonable likelihood of violating an Executive Order, or federal, state or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.
(5) A reasonable likelihood of causing a significant increase in surface
(6) A reasonable likelihood of significantly degrading air quality or violating air quality control standards under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q).
(7) A reasonable likelihood of significantly impacting water quality, public water supply systems, or state or local water quality control standards under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
(8) A reasonable likelihood of a disproportional high and adverse effect on low income and minority populations.
(9) A reasonable likelihood of degrading existing unsatisfactory environmental conditions.
(10) A reasonable likelihood of establishing a precedent for future action or making a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
(c) The Executive Director shall include in his EDR, or the documentation of a Delegated Action, his/her decision to apply or not apply a Categorical Exclusion because of Extraordinary Circumstances and the rationale for this decision.
Commission actions that may be categorically excluded and normally do not require either an EA or an EIS include:
(a) Approval of the installation or restoration of onsite primary or secondary electrical distribution systems including minor solar panel arrays.
(b) Approval of the installation or restoration of minor site elements, such as but not limited to identification signs, sidewalks, patios, fences, curbs, retaining walls, landscaping, and trail or stream improvements. Additional features include water distribution lines and sewer lines which involve work that is essentially replacement in kind.
(c) Approval of the installation or restoration of minor building elements, such as, but not limited to windows, doors, roofs, building signs, and rooftop equipment and green roofs.
(d) Adoption of a Federal Element of the Comprehensive Plan or amendment thereto or broad based policy or feasibility plans prepared and adopted by the Commission in response to the Comprehensive Plan.
(e) Approval of an action proposed by a District of Columbia agency which the agency has determined is not a major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment or is designated an exclusion in accordance with the requirements and procedures of DC Code. 8-109.06 and any regulations adopted to implement the referenced statutory provision.
(f) Approval of changes to highway plans for portions of the District of Columbia prepared by the Mayor, pursuant to D.C Code. 9-103.02, subject to documentation by the District that such plans involve no major traffic volume increase, have minimal or no effect on the environment, result in no significant change to existing environmental conditions, and impose no significant cumulative environmental impact associated with the action associated with the action as demonstrated in accordance with the requirements and procedures of DC Code. 8-109.01
(g) Approval of the sale by the Secretary of the Interior of parcels of real estate held by the United States in the District of Columbia under the jurisdiction of NPS that are no longer needed for public purposes pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8735. Such an action shall be accompanied by a NPS NEPA determination that demonstrates minimal or no effect on the environment, no significant change to existing environmental conditions, and no significant cumulative environmental impact associated with the action.
(h) Approval of the exchange of parcels of District-owned land, or part thereof, for an abutting lot or parcel of land, or part thereof pursuant to DC Code. 10-901, when such plans involve minimal or no effect on the environment, no significant change to existing environmental conditions, and no significant cumulative environmental impact associated with the action as demonstrated in accordance with the requirements and procedures of DC Code 8-109.01
(i) Approval of the installation of communication antennae on federal buildings and co-location of communication antennae on federal property consistent with GSA Bulletin FMR D-242, Placement of Commercial Antennas on Federal Property.
(j) Approval of new construction, building expansion, or improvements to existing facilities, when:
(1) The new structure and proposed use are in compliance with local planning and zoning and any applicable District of Columbia, state, or federal requirements.
(2) The site and the scale of construction are consistent with those of existing adjacent or nearby buildings.
(3) The proposed use will not substantially increase the number of motor vehicles at the Facility.
(4) There is no evidence of community controversy or other environmental issues.
(k) Approval of transfers of jurisdiction pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8421(a) that will not lead to anticipated changes in the use of land and that have no potential for environmental impact.
(l) Approval of a minor modification to a General Development Plan applicable to lands acquired pursuant to the Capper-Cramton Act, 46 Stat. 482 (1930), as amended, when no or minimal environmental impacts are anticipated.
(m) Approval of an action proposed by a Federal Agency applicant when such applicant has determined a categorical exclusion set forth in its NEPA-implementing procedures applies to the proposed action; provided the Executive Director shall review the determination as to both the applicability of the exclusion and the absence of any extraordinary circumstances.
(n) Reorganization of NCPC.
(o) Personnel actions, including, but not limited to, investigations; performance reviews; award of personal service contracts, promotions, and awards; reductions in force, reassignments and relocations; and employee supervision and training.
(p) Legal activities including, but not limited to, legal advice and opinions; litigation or other methods of dispute resolution; and procurement of outside legal services.
(q) Procurement of goods and services, transactions, and other types of activities related to the routine and continuing administration, management, maintenance and operations of the Commission or its facilities.
(r) Adoption and issuance of rules, directives, official policies, guidelines, and publications or recommendations of an educational, financial, informational, legal, technical or procedural nature.
(a) An EA is a concise document with sufficient information and analysis to enable the Executive Director to
(b) Commission actions that generally require an EA exhibit the following characteristics:
(1) Minor but likely insignificant degradation of environmental quality;
(2) Minor but likely insignificant cumulative impact on environmental quality; and
(3) Minor but likely insignificant impact on protected resources.
Commission actions that typically require preparation of an EA include without limitation:
(a) Approval of final plans for Federal public buildings in the District of Columbia, and the provisions for open space in and around the same, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8722(d) and DC Code 2-1004(c), unless such plans meet the criteria of § 601.12(j).
(b) Approval of final plans for District of Columbia public buildings and the open space around them within the Central Area pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8722(e) and DC Code 2-1004(d) unless such plans meet the criteria of § 601.12(e) or (j).
(c) Recommendations to a Federal or District of Columbia agency on any master plan or master plan modification submitted to the Commission that include proposed future projects that require Commission approval pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8722(d)-(e) and DC Code 2-1004(c)-(d) within a five-year timeframe.
(d) Approval of a final site and design for a commemorative work authorized under the Commemorative Works Act pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8905.
(e) Approval of transfers of jurisdiction over properties within the District of Columbia owned by the United States or the District among or between federal and District authorities, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 8124(a), unless such transfers met the criteria of § 601.12(k).
An EA prepared by NCPC as the Lead Agency for a project requiring Commission approval shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) The EA shall include, without limitation, a brief discussion of the proposed action; the need for the proposed action; the environmental impacts of the proposed action; the environmental impacts of the alternatives considered; Mitigation measures, if necessary; and a list of agencies and persons consulted in preparation of the assessment.
(b) The NCPC shall involve, as appropriate, applicants; Federal and District of Columbia agencies; the public; and stakeholders (those with an economic, cultural, social, or environmental “stake” in the action) in the preparation of an EA.
(c) The NCPC, at the sole discretion of the Executive Director, may undertake Public Scoping for an action requiring an EA. The Public Scoping shall commence thirty calendar days after issuance of a public notice of NCPC's intent to prepare an EA. The notice shall include the date, time and location of the Public Scoping meeting.
(d) The NCPC may solicit public review and comment of a Draft EA. The public comment period shall be a minimum of thirty calendar days. The public comment period shall begin when the Executive Director announces the availability of the Draft EA on the NCPC Web site (
(a) If NCPC is the Lead Agency and the final EA supports a FONSI, NCPC shall prepare and execute a FONSI. The FONSI shall be prepared following closure of the discretionary public comment period on a Draft EA, or if no circulation is deemed necessary, at the conclusion of the preparation of an EA. The FONSI shall briefly state the reasons why the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the environment and include the EA or a summary thereof, any Mitigation commitments, and a schedule for implementing the Mitigation commitments.
(b) If NCPC is not the Lead Agency, it shall evaluate the adequacy of the Lead Agency's FONSI, and if determined adequate, NCPC may co-sign the Lead Agency's FONSI. Alternatively, NCPC may prepare and execute its own FONSI consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) A FONSI prepared by NCPC shall be available for public review seven calendar days before the Commission takes action on the underlying application.
(d) If the Commission determines a Lead Agency's EA does not support a FONSI, either the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIS, or the Commission shall not approve or consider further the underlying application.
(a) The NCPC shall prepare a supplemental EA if five or more years have elapsed since adoption of the EA and:
(1) There are substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; and
(2) There are significant new circumstances or information that are relevant to environmental concerns and have a bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
(b) The NCPC may supplement a Draft or Final EA at any time to further the purposes of NEPA.
(c) The NCPC shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a Draft or Final EA, and adopt a FONSI in accordance with the requirements of §§ 601.15 and 601.16. If NCPC is not the Lead Agency, it shall proceed as outlined in § 601.16(b) and (c).
Prior to the Commission's approval of a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the Executive Director shall prepare an EIS on behalf of a Non-federal Agency applicant.
(a) As required by 40 CFR 1508.27(a) and (b), the determination of whether an EIS is required and whether impacts are significant shall be made with consideration to the context and intensity of the impacts associated with a proposed action.
(b) The significance of an action is determined in the context of its effects on society as a whole, the National Capital Region and its environs, the particular interests affected, and the specific locality or area within which the proposed action is located. The context will vary from project to project and will be based on the type, attributes, and characteristics of a particular proposal.
(c) The significance of an action is also determined based on the severity of impacts imposed by the proposal. Severity shall be determined based on an evaluation of a proposal in the manner outlined in 40 CFR1508.27(b)(1) through (10). The evaluation shall also be informed by the relevant policies of “The Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital: Federal Elements” and other applicable Commission plans and programs. Proposed actions that conflict
(d) Proposed actions shall also be deemed significant and require and EIS if they exhibit the following characteristics:
(1) The proposed action results in extensive change to the Monumental Core.
(2) The proposed action causes substantial alteration to the important historical, cultural, and natural features of the National Capital and its Environs.
(3) The proposed action is likely to be controversial because of its impacts on the human environment.
The NCPC as Lead Agency shall use all available techniques to minimize the length of an EIS. Such techniques include, without limitation, drafting an EIS in clear, concise language; preparing an analytic vs. encyclopedic EIS; reducing emphasis on background information; using the scoping process to emphasize significant issues and de-emphasize non-significant issues; incorporating relevant information by reference; using a programmatic EIS and tiering to eliminate duplication in subsequent EISs; and following the format guidelines of § 601.22.
(a) The NCPC shall prepare a programmatic NEPA Document (Programmatic EA or PEA or Programmatic EIS or PEIS) to assess the impacts of proposed projects and plans when there is uncertainty regarding the timing, location and environmental impacts of subsequent implementing actions. At the time NCPC undertakes a site or project specific action within the parameters of the PEA or PEIS, NCPC shall tier its NEPA Document by summarizing information in the PEIS or PEA, as applicable, and concentrate on the issues applicable to the specific action.
(b) A PEIS or PEA prepared by NCPC shall be governed by the CEQ regulations and the rules of this part.
When NCPC serves as Lead Agency for an EIS, the following information shall be included in the EIS:
(a) A cover sheet. The cover sheet shall be one-page and include a list of responsible and Cooperating Agencies; the title of the proposed action that is the subject of the EIS; the name, address, and telephone number of the NCPC point of contact; the designation as to whether the statement is draft, final, or draft or final supplement; a one paragraph abstract of the EIS; and the date by which comments must be received.
(b) A summary. The summary shall accurately summarize the information presented in the EIS. The summary shall focus on the main conclusions, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved. The summary shall not exceed fifteen pages.
(c) A table of contents. The table of contents shall allow a reader to quickly locate subject matter in the EIS—either by topic area and/or alternatives analyzed.
(d) The purpose and need. A statement of the purpose of and need for the action briefly stating the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding.
(e) The identification of alternatives including the proposed action. This section shall provide a brief description and supporting documentation for all alternatives including the proposed action; the no action alternative; all reasonable alternatives including those not within the jurisdiction of the agency; alternatives considered but eliminated and the reason for their elimination; the agency's preferred alternative, if one exists; the environmentally preferred alternative; and Mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action.
(f) The identification of the affected environment. This section shall provide a succinct description of the environment to be affected by the proposed action and the alternatives considered. This section shall include, if applicable, other activities in the area affected by or related to the proposed action.
(g) The identification of environmental consequences. This section shall focus on the environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible commitments of resources which would be involved if the proposal is implemented. The impacts shall be discussed in terms of direct, indirect and cumulative effects and their significance, as well as any appropriate means to mitigate adverse impacts. The discussion shall also include issues and impact topics considered but dismissed to reveal non-impacted resources. Resource areas and issues requiring consideration shall include those identified in the scoping process, and, without limitation, the following:
(1) Possible conflicts between the proposed action and the land use plans, policies, or controls (local, state, or Indian tribe) for the area concerned.
(2) Natural and biological resources including topography, hydrology, soils, flora, fauna, floodplains, wetlands, and endangered species.
(3) Air quality.
(4) Noise.
(5) Water resources including wastewater treatment and storm water management.
(6) Utilities including energy requirements and conservation.
(7) Solid waste and hazardous waste generation/removal.
(8) Community facilities.
(9) Housing.
(10) Transportation network.
(11) Socio-cultural and economic environments.
(12) Environmental Justice and the requirements of Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations).
(13) Urban quality and design of the built environment including visual resources and aesthetics.
(14) Historic and cultural resources to include documentation of the results of the Section 106 Consultation process.
(15) Public health and safety.
(h) A list of preparers. This list shall include all pertinent organizations, agencies, individuals, and government representatives primarily responsible for the preparation of the EIS and their qualifications.
(i) An index. The index shall be structured to reasonably assist the reader of the Draft or Final EIS in identifying and locating major topic areas or elements of the EIS information. The level of detail of the index shall provide sufficient focus on areas of interest to any reader not just the most important topics.
(j) An appendix. The appendix shall consist of material prepared in connection with an EIS (as distinct from material which is incorporated by reference) and material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the EIS. The material in the appendix shall be analytical and relevant to the decision to be made. The appendix shall be circulated with the EIS or be readily available upon request.
(a) The NCPC shall involve the applicant, Federal and District of Columbia agencies, members of the public and stakeholders in the preparation of an EIS. Public participation shall be required as part of Public Scoping process and review of the Draft EIS. The NCPC shall also consult with agencies having jurisdiction by law or expertise. Agencies with “jurisdiction by law” are those with ultimate jurisdiction over a project and whose assistance may be required on certain issues and those with other kinds of regulatory or advisory authority with respect to the action or its effects on particular environmental resources.
(b) To determine the scope of an EIS through a Public Scoping process, NCPC shall proceed as follows:
(1) Disseminate a NOI in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6.
(2) Publish a NOI in the
(3) Include the date, time, and location of a Public Scoping meeting in the NOI. The public meeting shall be announced at least thirty calendar days in advance of its scheduled date.
(4) Hold Public Scoping meeting(s) in facilities that are accessible to the disabled; include Translators requested in advance; include signers or interpreters for the hearing impaired if requested in advance; and allow special arrangements for consultation with affected Indian tribes or other Native American groups who have environmental concerns that cannot be shared in a public forum.
(5) Consider all comments received during the announced comment period regarding the analysis of alternatives, the affected environment, and identification of potential impacts.
(6) Apply the provisions of this section to a Supplemental EIS if the Executive Director of NCPC, in his/her sole discretion, determines a Public Scoping process is required for a Supplemental EIS.
(c) A Draft EIS shall be available to the public for their review and comment, for a period of not less than forty-five calendar days. The public comment period shall begin when EPA publishes a NOA of the document in the
(a) The NCPC shall prepare a Final EIS following the public comment period and the public meeting(s) on the Draft EIS. The Final EIS shall respond to oral and written comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period.
(b) The Commission shall take final action on an application following a thirty-day Commission-sponsored review period of the Final EIS. The thirty-day period shall start when the EPA publishes a NOA for the Final EIS in the
(a) If NCPC as the Lead Agency decides to recommend approval of a proposed action covered by an EIS, it shall prepare and sign a ROD stating the Commission's decision and any conservation or Mitigation measures required by the Commission. The ROD shall include among others:
(1) A statement of the decision.
(2) The identification of alternatives considered in reaching a decision specifying the alternatives that were considered to be environmentally preferable. The ROD shall discuss preferences among alternatives based on relevant factors including economic and technical planning considerations and the Commission's statutory mission. The ROD s shall identify those factors balanced to reach a decision and the influence of various factors on the decision.
(3) A statement as to whether all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected has been adopted, and if not, why they are not.
(4) A monitoring and enforcement program that summarizes Mitigation measures.
(5) Date of issuance.
(6) Signature of the Chairman.
(b) The contents of the ROD proposed for Commission adoption shall be summarized in the EDR and a full version of the document shall be included as an Appendix to the EDR. The proposed ROD, independently of the EDR, shall be made available to the public for review fourteen calendar days prior to the Commission's consideration of the proposed action for which the EIS was prepared.
(c) The Commission shall arrive at its decision about the proposed action and it's environmental effects in a public meeting of record as identified by the Commission's monthly agenda.
(d) If NCPC is not the Lead Agency, it shall either co-sign the Lead Agency's ROD if it agrees with its contents and conclusions or it shall prepare and sign its own ROD consistent with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(e) If the Commission determines a Lead Agency's EIS fails to support a ROD, the Lead Agency shall revise its EIS, or, alternatively, the Commission shall not approve or give any further consideration to the underlying application.
(a) The NCPC shall prepare a supplemental EIS if five or more years has elapsed since adoption of the EIS and:
(1) There are substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns; and
(2) There are significant new circumstances or information that are relevant to environmental concerns and have a bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
(b) The NCPC may supplement a Draft or Final EIS at any time, to further the purposes of NEPA.
(c) The NCPC shall prepare, circulate, and file a supplement to a Draft or Final EIS in accordance with the requirements of §§ 601.22 through 601.24 of this part except that Public Scoping is optional for a supplemental EIS.
(d) The NCPC shall prepare a ROD for a Supplemental EIS. The ROD's contents, the procedure for public review, and the manner in which it shall be adopted shall be as set forth in § 601.25.
(a) Consistent with 40 CFR 1506.8, the Executive Director shall prepare an EIS for draft legislation initiated by NCPC for submission to Congress. The EIS for the proposed legislation shall be included as part of the formal transmittal of NCPC's legislative proposal to Congress.
(b) The requirements of this section shall not apply to legislation Congress directs NCPC to prepare.
Any disputes arising under this part, shall be resolved, unless otherwise stated, by the parties through interagency, good faith negotiations starting at the working levels of each agency, and if necessary, by escalating such disputes within the respective agencies. If resolution at higher levels is
Office of the Secretary, Department of Energy.
Request for information (RFI).
As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued by the President on January 30, 2017, the Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist DOE in identifying existing regulations, paperwork requirements and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
Written comments and information are requested on or before July 14, 2017.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, identified by “Regulatory Burden Reduction RFI,” by any of the following methods:
Daniel Cohen, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 586-5000. Email:
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” That Order stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. The Order stated it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, for fiscal year 2017, E.O. 13771 requires:
(1) “Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency . . . publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.” Sec. 2(a).
(2) “For fiscal year 2017, . . . the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget . . . .” Sec. 2(b).
(3) “In furtherance of the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” Sec. 2(c).
Further, the Executive Order requires that for fiscal year 2018, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, offsetting regulations, and provide the agency's best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation. During the Presidential budget process beginning in fiscal year 2018 and for each year thereafter, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) will identify to each agency a total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed for such agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year. No regulations exceeding the agency's total incremental cost allowance will be permitted in that fiscal year, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director. The total incremental cost allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” The Order required the head of each agency designate an agency official as its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). Each RRO shall oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force will make recommendations to the agency head regarding the repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform task force shall attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(vi) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
Finally, on March 28, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 13783, entitled “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. Among other things, E.O. 13783 requires the heads of agencies to review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions (collectively, agency actions) that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources, with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources. Such review does not include agency actions that are mandated by law, necessary for the public interest, and consistent with the policy set forth elsewhere in that order.
Executive Order 13783 defined burden for purposes of the review of existing regulations to mean to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.
To implement these Executive Orders, the Department is taking two immediate steps.
Pursuant to the Executive Orders, the Department is, through this request for information, seeking input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by regulations of the Department of Energy, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and manufacturers and their trade associations. The Department's goal is to create a systematic method for identifying those existing DOE rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, unjustified, or simply no longer make sense.
Consistent with the Department's commitment to public participation in the rulemaking process, the Department is beginning this process by soliciting views from the public on how best to conduct its analysis of existing DOE rules. It is also seeking views from the public on specific rules or Department imposed obligations that should be altered or eliminated. While the Department promulgates rules in accordance with the law and to the best of its analytic capability, it is difficult to be certain of the consequences of a rule, including its costs and benefits, until it has been tested. Because knowledge about the full effects of a rule is widely dispersed in society, members of the public are likely to have useful information and perspectives on the benefits and burdens of existing requirements and how regulatory obligations may be updated, streamlined, revised, or repealed to better achieve regulatory objectives, while minimizing regulatory burdens, consistent with applicable law. Interested parties may also be well-positioned to identify those rules that are most in need of reform, and, thus, assist the Department in prioritizing and properly tailoring its review process. In short, engaging the public in an open, transparent process is a crucial first step in DOE's review of its existing regulations.
To allow DOE to more effectively evaluate suggestions, the Department is requesting comments include:
• Supporting data or other information such as cost information
• Specific suggestions regarding repeal, replacement, or modification.
The following list of questions represents a preliminary attempt by DOE to identify rules/obligations on which it should immediately focus. This non-exhaustive list is meant to assist in the formulation of comments and is not intended to restrict the issues that may be addressed. In addressing these questions or others, DOE requests that commenters identify with specificity the regulation or reporting requirement at issue, providing legal citation where available. The Department also requests that the submitter provide, in as much detail as possible, an explanation why a regulation or reporting requirement should be modified, streamlined, or repealed, as well as specific suggestions of ways the Department can do so while achieving its regulatory objectives.
(1) How can DOE best promote meaningful regulatory cost reduction while achieving its regulatory objectives, and how can it best identify those rules that might be modified, streamlined, or repealed?
(2) What factors should DOE consider in selecting and prioritizing rules and reporting requirements for reform?
(3) How can DOE best obtain and consider accurate, objective information and data about the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing regulations? Are there existing sources of data DOE can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of regulations over time? We invite interested parties to provide data that may be in their possession that documents the costs, burdens, and benefits of existing requirements.
(4) Are there regulations that simply make no sense or have become unnecessary, ineffective, or ill-advised and if so what are they? Are there rules that can simply be repealed without impairing DOE's statutory obligations and, if so, what are they?
(5) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have become outdated and, if so, how can they be modernized to better accomplish their objective?
(6) Are there rules that are still necessary, but have not operated as well as expected such that a modified, or slightly different approach at lower cost is justified?
(7) Are there rules of the Department that unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources?
(8) Does DOE currently collect information that it does not need or use effectively?
(9) Are there regulations, reporting requirements, or regulatory processes that are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to achieve statutory obligations in more efficient ways?
(10) Are there rules or reporting requirements that have been overtaken by technological developments? Can new technologies be leveraged to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory or reporting requirements?
(11) Does the methodology and data used in analyses supporting DOE's regulations meet the requirements of the Information Quality Act?
The Department notes that this RFI is issued solely for information and program-planning purposes. While responses to this RFI do not bind DOE to any further actions related to the response, all submissions will be made publicly available on
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
This action proposes to establish a de minimis quantity exemption threshold under the Softwood Lumber Research, Promotion, Consumer Education and Industry Information Order (Order). The Order is
Comments must be received by July 31, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposal. Comments may be submitted on the Internet at:
Maureen T. Pello, Marketing Specialist, Promotion and Economics Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 831, Beavercreek, Oregon, 97004; telephone: (503) 632-8848; facsimile (503) 632-8852; or electronic mail:
This proposal is issued under the Order (7 CFR part 1217). The Order is authorized under the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (1996 Act) (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules and promoting flexibility. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review. Additionally, because this rule does not meet the definition of a significant regulatory action it does not trigger the requirements contained in Executive Order 13771.
This action has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this proposal would not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and would not have significant Tribal implications.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect. Section 524 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7423) provides that it shall not affect or preempt any other Federal or State law authorizing promotion or research relating to an agricultural commodity.
Under section 519 of the 1996 Act (7 U.S.C. 7418), a person subject to an order may file a written petition with USDA stating that an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, is not established in accordance with the law, and request a modification of an order or an exemption from an order. Any petition filed challenging an order, any provision of an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed within two years after the effective date of an order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition. The petitioner will have the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The 1996 Act provides that the district court of the United States for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have the jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition, if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
This proposed rule would establish a de minimis quantity exemption threshold under the Order. The Order, codified at 7 CFR part 1217, is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). In
To address the court's decision, USDA conducted a new analysis to determine a reasonable and appropriate de minimis quantity exemption. USDA analyzed various thresholds of exemption: 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mmbf. USDA also considered proposing no de minimis exemption. USDA's analysis of the data resulted in a determination that a de minimis level of 15 mmbf is reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, this proposal would establish the de minimis quantity threshold under the Order at 15 mmbf.
The 1996 Act authorizes USDA to establish agricultural commodity research and promotion orders which may include a combination of promotion, research, industry information, and consumer information activities funded by mandatory assessments. These programs are designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for agricultural commodities. As defined under section 513(1)(D) of the 1996 Act, agricultural commodities include the products of forestry, which includes softwood lumber.
The 1996 Act provides for a number of optional provisions that allow the tailoring of orders for different commodities. Section 516 of the 1996 Act provides permissive terms for orders. Section 516 states that an order may include an exemption of de minimis quantities of an agricultural commodity. Further, section 516(g) of the 1996 Act provides authority for other action that is consistent with the purpose of the statute and necessary to administer a program.
The softwood lumber program took effect in August 2011 (76 FR 46185) and assessment collection began in January 2012. Under the Order, assessments are collected from domestic (U.S.) manufacturers and importers and are used by the Board for projects that promote market growth for softwood
The term `domestic manufacturer' is defined in section 1217.8 of the Order to mean any person who is a first handler engaged in the manufacturing, sale and shipment of softwood lumber in the United States during a fiscal period and who owns, or shares in the ownership and risk of loss of manufacturing of softwood lumber or a person who is engaged in the business of manufacturing, or causes to be manufactured, sold and shipped such softwood lumber in the United States beyond personal use. The term does not include persons who re-manufacture softwood lumber that has already been subject to assessment. The term `manufacture' is defined in section 1217.13 of the Order to mean the process of transforming (or turning) softwood logs into softwood lumber.
Domestic manufacturers are essentially sawmills that turn softwood logs into lumber. A domestic manufacturer may be a company that is a single sawmill, or it may be a company that is composed of multiple sawmills.
The term `importer' is defined in section 1217.11 of the Order to mean any person who imports softwood lumber from outside the United States for sale in the United States as a principal or as an agent, broker, or consignee of any person who manufactures softwood lumber outside the United States for sale in the United States, and who is listed in the import records as the importer of record for such softwood lumber. Import records are maintained by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs or CBP). Both domestic manufacturers and importers may be referred to in this rulemaking as “entities.”
Pursuant to section 1217.50 of the Order, the Board is authorized to incur expenses for research and promotion projects as well as administration. The Board's expenses are paid by assessments upon domestic manufacturers and importers. Pursuant to section 1217.52(b), and subject to the exemptions specified in section 1217.53 of the Order, each domestic manufacturer and importer must pay an assessment to the Board at the rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet of softwood lumber, except that no entity has to pay an assessment on the first 15 mmbf of softwood lumber otherwise subject to assessment in a fiscal year. Domestic manufacturers pay assessments based on the volume of softwood lumber shipped within the United States and importers pay assessments based on the volume of softwood lumber imported to the United States. Pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (j) in section 1217.52, respectively, domestic manufacturers and importers who pay their assessments to the Board must do so no later than the 30th calendar day of the month following the end of the quarter in which the softwood lumber was shipped or imported.
Section 1217.53 of the Order prescribes exemptions from assessment. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of that section, the original de minimis quantity exemption threshold under the Order was 15 mmbf. Thus, U.S. manufacturers and importers that domestically ship and/or import less than 15 mmbf feet annually have been exempt from paying assessments. Domestic manufacturers and importers that ship or import less than the de minimis quantity of softwood lumber must apply to the Board each year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as appropriate to support their request.
Pursuant to paragraph (b) of section 1217.53 of the Order, domestic manufacturers and importers that ship or import 15 mmbf or more annually do not pay assessments on their first 15 mmbf domestically shipped or imported. This
Pursuant to section 1217.70 of the Order, domestic manufacturers and importers who pay their assessments directly to the Board must submit with their payment a report that specifies the quantity of softwood lumber domestically shipped or imported. Pursuant to section 1217.71 of the Order, all domestic manufacturers and importers must maintain books and records necessary to verify reports for a period of 2 years beyond the fiscal year to which they apply, including those exempt. These records must be made available during normal business hours for inspection by Board staff or USDA.
The original 15 mmbf quantity exemption threshold is referenced in other Order provisions. Section 1217.40 specifies that the Board is composed of domestic manufacturers and importers who domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or more of softwood lumber annually. Section 1217.41 of the Order specifies that persons interested in serving on the Board must also domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or more softwood lumber annually. Finally, section 1217.101 of the Order regarding referendum procedures specifies that eligible domestic manufacturers and importers that can vote in referenda must domestically ship or import 15 mmbf or more of softwood lumber annually.
The softwood lumber program was implemented after notice and comment rulemaking and a May 2011 referendum demonstrating strong support for the program. Pursuant to section 1217.81(a) of the Order, the program had to pass by a majority of those voting in the referendum who also represented a majority of the volume voted. Sixty-seven percent of the entities who voted, who together represented 80 percent of the volume, in the referendum favored implementation of the program. Entities that domestically shipped or imported
The softwood lumber program has continued to operate at the 15 mmbf exemption threshold since its inception. During these years, the Board has funded a variety of activities designed to increase the demand for softwood lumber. The Board funded a U.S. Tall Wood Building Prize Competition that is helping to showcase the benefits of building tall structures with wood. The Board also funds research on wood standards; a communications program, which includes continuing education courses for architects and engineers; and a construction and design program that provides technical support to architects and structural engineers about using wood.
The Secretary has authority under section 516 of the 1996 Act to exempt any de minimis quantity of an agricultural commodity otherwise covered by an order: “An order issued under this subchapter may contain . . . authority for the Secretary to exempt from the order any de minimis quantity of an agricultural commodity otherwise covered by the order . . . .” 7 U.S.C. 7415(a). A de minimis quantity exemption allows an industry to exempt from assessment small entities that could be unduly burdened from an order's requirements (
In evaluating the merits of a de minimis quantity for the softwood lumber program, USDA considered several factors. These factors include: An estimate of the total quantity of softwood lumber covered under the Order (quantity assessed and quantity exempted); available funding to support a viable program; free rider implications; and the impact of program requirements on entities (above and below a de minimis threshold). USDA reviewed such factors in light of all available data and information to determine whether a de minimis quantity is reasonable. USDA balances the multiple factors to assess whether one exemption threshold would work better than another when the factors are considered collectively. The analysis contained herein is based on the current assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
The first factor considered to determine a de minimis quantity that would be reasonable for the softwood lumber program was an examination of how much of the product covered by the program would be assessed versus how much of the product would be exempted. Issues of fairness and potential issues related to free riders may also be of concern. The lower the de minimis threshold, the greater the number of entities that would be subject to assessment under the program. At some point, a de minimis threshold can be “too low” whereby the assessment revenue that would be collected from very small entities is not worth the administration and compliance costs of including them under the order. Conversely, a higher de minimis quantity results in fewer entities being subject to assessment under the order. This means that a greater number of entities would benefit from the activities of the program without paying assessment as the de minimis level increases. USDA's goal is to identify a level that reasonably balances these competing issues.
To evaluate the first factor, USDA estimated the quantity of softwood lumber that would be assessed versus the quantity that would be exempt under a program with de minimis exemptions at different levels: 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 mmbf. USDA also estimated the quantity of softwood lumber assessed if there were no de minimis exemption. To accomplish this, USDA first estimated the volume of softwood lumber domestically shipped by domestic manufacturers and the volume imported by importers.
To estimate the volume of domestic softwood lumber, USDA utilized data from Forest Economic Advisors, LLC (FEA), which publishes data on aggregate softwood lumber shipments in the U.S. (for the industry as a whole) and operating capacity by individual sawmill. A sawmill is a business operation that converts raw forest products into lumber. A domestic manufacturer can be composed of one sawmill or multiple sawmills. A sawmill's operating capacity is the total amount of softwood lumber that it could manufacture (or produce) if it fully utilized all of its resources (such as labor and equipment).
FEA is a U.S.-based company that studies market trends in the forest products industry in North America.
To USDA's knowledge, there is no one, complete source of individual shipment data for domestic manufacturers of softwood lumber. While the Board has shipment data for domestic manufacturers that pay assessments (ship 15 mmbf or more annually), it does not have shipment data for exempt manufacturers. Thus, USDA used FEA data to estimate individual shipments for each manufacturer. USDA requests comments specifically on whether there are other reliable sources that the agency should consider in its analysis of domestic manufacturing. All data in this analysis is for the year 2015, which is the most recent year for which complete data is available.
Using FEA data to estimate shipments of softwood lumber by domestic manufacturers, USDA found that domestic shipments totaled 28.754 billion board feet (bbf) in 2015.
To calculate the sawmill operating rate, USDA divided total shipments in the U.S.
Total U.S. softwood lumber shipments in Equation 1 above differs from the total estimated shipments noted previously and shown later in Table 1. The reason for this is that the figure for total U.S. shipments in Equation 1 represents
Pursuant to section 1217.52(g) of the Order, imports of softwood lumber are subject to the same assessment as domestic product. Section 1217.52(h) of the Order specifies the categories of softwood lumber that are assessed under the program as identified via the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code. Imported commodities are assigned codes via the HTS with the first numbers denoting the heading, which is a broad description of the commodity, and the subsequent numbers denoting the subheadings, which specify the commodity in greater detail. A list of softwood lumber products subject to assessment and their HTS headings and subheadings are listed below.
To estimate imports of softwood lumber into the U.S. for 2015, USDA utilized data collected by CBP via the agency's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database. CBP disseminates the statistical trade data that it collects to the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), which then aggregates the data and supplies it to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) for publication on FAS' Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS).
For the purpose of this analysis, USDA excluded from the CBP data imports with country of origin listed as the U.S. because such information would already be represented in the domestic shipment data previously discussed. USDA also summed import volumes for entities listed as separate companies, but which are one and the same. In addition, USDA excluded the Customs entries for which the computed price (the quotient of value and quantity) of the commodity was less than the lowest reported monthly price for the year 2015, according to FEA data.
Using this modified CBP data, USDA estimated the total volume of softwood lumber imports for 2015 at 12.495 bbf, which aligns more closely to import figures published on FAS' GATS (13.809 bbf) and used by FEA (13.963 bbf) for 2015. Using the 12.495 bbf figure, USDA's estimate of assessment revenue for 2015 at the 15 mmbf exemption threshold was within 3 percent of what the Board recorded for assessment revenue in 2015. (This is explained in detail later in this document.) If USDA used the 15.912 bbf figure instead, USDA's estimates for 2015 assessment revenue and the number of assessed entities would be inflated. Thus, USDA used the modified CBP figure of 12.495 bbf in its analysis as a reasonable estimate of 2015 softwood lumber imports.
The import statistics that result from aggregation by Census cover “goods valued at more than $2,000 per commodity shipped by individuals and organizations (including importers and customs brokers) into the U.S. from other countries.”
Similar to the import statistics described above, the aggregated export statistics cover “goods valued at more than $2,500 per commodity shipped by individuals and organizations (including exporters, freight forwarders, and carriers) from the U.S. to other countries.”
Table 1 shows total U.S. supply of softwood lumber, which is the sum of domestic shipments and imports in 2015. As mentioned previously, shipments per entity were estimated using the sawmill operating rate shown in Equation 1. Total shipments in Table 1 represent the sum of shipments by entity. Imports in Table 1 are the sum of the imported commodities assigned the formerly described HTS codes. Summing domestic shipments and imported products of softwood lumber results in a U.S. total supply of 41.249 bbf.
Using 2015 FEA sawmill capacity data and the estimated operating rate of 76 percent, Figure 1 below shows the number of softwood lumber manufacturers in the U.S. in 2015 by estimated shipments. As stated previously, USDA calculated estimated shipments by applying the estimated industry-wide 76 percent operating rate to the sawmill capacity of each manufacturer.
USDA considered the impacts of five different de minimis thresholds on the softwood lumber industry and program operations, as well as the impact of having no de minimis exemption. An analysis of these different de minimis exemption levels follows in Tables 2 and 3 in this section, and in Table 4 in the section of this document titled Free Rider Implications.
Table 2 shows assessable volume and revenue at exemption levels of 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf, as well as with no exemptions. The table accounts for both the de minimis and equity exemptions under the Order, and an assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet.
With de minimis and equity exemptions of 30 mmbf, total assessable volume would be 32.805 bbf which would provide $11.482 million in assessment revenue. At exemptions of 25 mmbf, total assessable volume would increase by 0.889 bbf, providing an additional $311,243 in assessment
Thus, for all exemption levels considered, assessable volume ranged between almost 33 bbf and a little more than 37 bbf. Assessment revenue ranged between nearly $11.5 million and about $13 million. From its inception in 2012, the softwood lumber program has operated with assessment revenue ranging from $10.638 million in 2012
Table 3 below is the inverse of Table 2 in that it shows exempt volume at de minimis and equity exemptions of 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf.
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 8 percent of the softwood lumber volume would be exempt as de minimis and 20 percent would be exempt in total (de minimis and equity exemptions); at an exemption of 25 mmbf, 7 percent would be exempt as de minimis and 18 percent would be exempt in total; at an exemption of 20 mmbf, 5 percent would be exempt as de minimis and 16 percent would be exempt in total; at an exemption of 15 mmbf, 4 percent would be exempt as de minimis and 13 percent would be exempt in total; and at an exemption of 10 mmbf, 3 percent would be exempt as de minimis and 10 percent would be exempt in total. Thus, the differences in the percent of softwood lumber exempt as de minimis at these different exemption thresholds ranges from 3 to 8 percent, and the percent exempt in total ranges from 10 to 20 percent. The percent of volume assessed, taking into account the de minimis and equity exemptions, ranges from 80 to 90 percent at the different exemption thresholds.
In its analysis, USDA reviewed other programs with de minimis exemptions operating under the 1996 Act. There are ten programs, including softwood lumber, that are authorized under the 1996 Act. Eight of these ten programs exempt a de minimis quantity from assessment, with half currently exempting between 3 and 11 percent of total quantity covered by the program as de minimis. Thus, there is a demonstrated history of de minimis exemptions working in other industries. In reviewing the total volume exempt under the softwood lumber program (taking into account both the de minimis and equity exemptions), the exemption threshold of 10 mmbf would exempt 10 percent of total volume, which is comparable to other programs and the exemption threshold of 15 mmbf would exempt 13 percent which is not much higher than other programs. The higher exemption thresholds of 20 to 30 mmbf exempt a higher total volume when compared with other programs.
The second factor used in evaluating a de minimis threshold for the softwood lumber program is the available funding to support a viable program. As shown in Table 2, assessment revenue would range from $11.482 million at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf to $14.437 million with no exemption (a total difference of about $3 million). Lowering the exemption threshold creates more revenue for program activities because a greater volume of softwood lumber is subject to assessment. As stated previously, assessment revenue under the current softwood lumber program has ranged from about $10.638 million in 2012 to $12.905 million in 2015. At this level of revenue, the current program has seen success, funding various programs to increase the use of softwood lumber in the built environment. The revenues estimated in Table 2 are comparable to these levels or higher. Thus, all of the exemption thresholds analyzed would generate sufficient revenue for a viable program.
Another factor used by USDA in determining a reasonable de minimis quantity for the softwood lumber program is consideration of free rider implications. Under a national research and promotion program, free riders are entities that benefit from the research and promotion activities of the program without paying assessments. Under this definition, free riders are the entities whose shipment or import volume is below the de minimis level and are exempt from paying assessments into the program.
Table 4 below shows the number of entities (domestic manufacturers and importers) that would be assessed and exempt at the exemption thresholds of 30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf.
At an exemption level of 30 mmbf, 16 percent of domestic manufacturers and importers would pay assessments while 84 percent would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 18 percent of entities would pay assessments while 82 percent would be exempt; at 20 mmbf, 20 percent would pay assessments while 80 percent would be exempt; at 15 mmbf, 24 percent would pay assessments, while 76 percent would be exempt; at 10 mmbf, 27 percent would be pay assessments while 73 percent would be exempt. With no exemption, all 1,054 entities, regardless of size, would pay assessments.
This analysis shows that a small portion of softwood lumber manufacturers and importers ship or import the majority of the volume of softwood lumber in the industry. Most domestic manufacturers and importers ship or import relatively small volumes of product.
The key to assessing the free rider implications of a de minimis quantity is not the number of entities exempt under a program (as shown in Table 4), but rather the
The equity exemption would reduce the impact of free riders on the program because it reduces the assessment burden on assessment payers. Without this exemption, assessment payers would pay more, thereby increasing the free rider impact. For example, if the thresholds for de minimis and equity exemptions were 10 mmbf, Company A that ships 8 mmbf annually would pay no assessments, and Company B that ships 30 mmbf annually would have to pay assessments on 20 mmbf of softwood lumber. At an assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet, this would compute to $7,000 in assessments. Without the equity exemption, Company A would still pay no assessments but Company B would have to pay assessments on 30 mmbf. This would compute to $10,500 in assessments, which is an additional burden of $3,500. Thus, the equity exemption reduces the burden of free riders on entities funding the program. It creates fairness because it exempts from assessment an equal volume from all entities, regardless of their size.
Thus, based upon this analysis of free rider implications, any of the exemption thresholds reviewed would be reasonable because they would exempt from 3 to 8 percent of the volume of softwood lumber as de minimis. The equity exemption helps to reduce the free rider impact on the program by reducing the assessment burden equally on assessment payers.
Further, generic promotion, research and information activities for agricultural commodities play a unique role in advancing the demand for such commodities, since such activities increase the total market for a product to the benefit of consumers and all producers. These generic activities can be of particular benefit to small producers who lack the resources or market power to advertise on their own. As contemplated by the 1996 Act, generic activities increase the general market demand for an agricultural commodity. For small manufacturers and importers, the benefit of increased market demand for softwood lumber would only be as great as their production capacities. Therefore, while generic promotion activities are of
The fourth factor analyzed by USDA in determining a reasonable de minimis quantity for this program is consideration of the impact of program requirements on entities covered under a research and promotion program. As previously mentioned, the softwood lumber Order prescribes assessment and reporting obligations for domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber. Entities that domestically ship or import at or above the de minimis threshold must pay assessments to the Board. The current assessment rate is $0.35 per thousand board feet; it can be increased to a maximum rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet by notice and comment rulemaking.
To calculate the impact of the assessment rate on the revenue of an assessment payer, the assessment rate is divided by an average price. Using an average 2015 price of $330 per thousand board feet,
Entities that pay assessments must also submit a report to the Board each quarter of the volume of softwood lumber shipped or imported for the respective quarter. Further, entities that ship or import less than the de minimis threshold must apply to the Board each year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as appropriate to support their request. The reporting and record keeping burdens are detailed later in this document in the section titled Paperwork Reduction Act.
Additionally, the Board has implemented a process under the Order to help ensure compliance with Order provisions. Board staff reviews and analyzes Customs data provided by USDA to verify import assessments.
As shown in Table 4, at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, 172 entities would pay assessments and 882 would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 13 additional entities would pay assessments and the number of exempt entities would be reduced by 13; at 20 mmbf, 30 additional entities would pay assessments and the number of exempt entities would be reduced by 30; at 15 mmbf, an additional 40 entities would pay assessments and the number of exempt entities would be reduced by 40; at 10 mmbf, an additional 28 entities would pay assessments and the number of exempt entities would be reduced by 28. Thus, as the exemption threshold is reduced, more entities would be subject to the Order's assessment and quarterly reporting obligation, and the Board's mail audit program. Conversely, as the exemption threshold increases, fewer entities would have to pay assessments, submit quarterly reports, and participate in the Board's audit program.
Further, a de minimis quantity exemption helps to reduce compliance costs under a research and promotion program. Compliance costs are an administrative cost to the Board, and section 1217.50(h) of the softwood lumber Order limits the Board's administrative expenses to 8 percent of the assessment and other income received by and available to the Board for a fiscal year. According to the Board, for 2015, compliance costs totaled $226,240 which computes to less than 2 percent of the Board's assessment revenue. These compliance costs are routine and include the amount of time the Board spends tracking and verifying assessments paid as well as educating industry members on program obligations. The costs of pursuing a compliance case against an entity that owes assessments to the Board varies depending upon the complexity of the case.
Under the softwood lumber program, the de minimis threshold exempts the small manufacturer that, according to FEA, typically sells into markets that are specialized or very local. Based on its knowledge of other research and promotion programs, USDA estimates the current cost of an on-site audit of a single entity at $5,000 or more, depending upon travel and time involved. Thus, the cost to pursue a compliance case against an entity that shipped less than 10 mmbf, 9 mmbf for example, would outweigh the revenue that would be collected from that entity of $3,150.
Because no de minimis quantity is specified in the 1996 Act, it is within the Secretary's discretion to determine an appropriate level for each program. There is no formula or economic framework that points to a single de minimis threshold. Thus, USDA considers a range of quantities that could be de minimis. Table 3, for example, shows a range of volumes from 10 to 30 mmbf that could be considered de minimis under the softwood lumber Order because they only exempt 3 to 8 percent of the total volume, respectively, as de minimis. USDA evaluated these volumes using four factors—an estimate of the quantity assessed versus the quantity exempted; funding to support a viable program; free rider implications; and the impact of program requirements. USDA's goal is to identify a de minimis quantity that reasonably balances these factors, and to assess whether one exemption threshold would work better than another when the factors are considered collectively.
Based on the analysis contained herein, USDA has determined the following. Exemption thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf would exempt 10 to 13
Further, the program functioned successfully in 2015 with assessment revenue of $12.905 million with de minimis and equity exemptions of 15 mmbf. The Board has conducted activities at this level of funding that have helped build demand for softwood lumber, including a prize competition for tall wood buildings, research on wood standards, and an education program for architects and engineers on building with wood. An independent evaluation completed in 2016 concluded that activities of the Board increased sales of softwood lumber between 2011 and 2015 by 1.683 bbf or $596 million. This equates to a return on investment of $15.55 of additional sales for every $1 spent on promotion by the Board.
Therefore, when considering all of the factors collectively, USDA has determined that a de minimis quantity of 15 mmbf would work better than the other thresholds reviewed. USDA concludes that 15 mmbf is a reasonable de minimis quantity under the softwood lumber Order. Accordingly, this proposed rule would establish the de minimis quantity threshold under the Order at 15 mmbf. Thus, USDA is not proposing any amendment to part 1217.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS is required to examine the impact of this proposed rule on small entities as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The classification of a business as small, as defined by the SBA, varies by industry. If a business is defined as “small” by SBA size standards, then it is “eligible for government programs and preferences reserved for `small business' concerns.”
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions so that small businesses will not be disproportionately burdened. The SBA defines, in 13 CFR part 121, small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of no more than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms (domestic manufacturers and importers) as those having annual receipts of no more than $7.5 million.
Using an average price of $330 per thousand board feet, a domestic manufacturer or importer who ships less than about 23 mmbf per year would be considered a small entity for purposes of the RFA. As shown in Table 4, there were 1,054 domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber based on 2015 data. Of these, 864 entities shipped or imported less than 23 mmbf and would be considered to be small entities under the SBA definition. Thus, based on the $7.5 million threshold, the majority of domestic manufacturers and importers of softwood lumber would be considered small entities for purposes of the RFA.
This action proposes to establish a de minimis quantity exemption threshold under the Order. The Order is administered by the Board with oversight by USDA. In response to a federal district court decision in
Regarding the economic impact of the de minimis exemption, the exemption allows the Board to exempt from assessment small entities that would be unduly burdened from the program's obligations. At the proposed exemption threshold, small manufacturers and importers that domestically ship or import less than 15 mmbf of softwood lumber would not have to pay assessments under the program.
Additionally, larger manufacturers and importers would not have to pay assessments on the first 15 mmbf of softwood lumber domestically shipped or imported each year. This exemption is intended for the purpose of equity, whereby all entities who must pay assessments may reduce their assessable volume by 15 mmbf. This exemption benefits smaller manufacturers and importers whose annual shipments or imports are above the de minimis threshold of 15 mmbf. With this exemption, an entity that ships or imports a quantity of softwood lumber equal to the RFA-small business definition of 23 mmbf, for example, would only pay assessments on no more than 8 mmbf of softwood lumber.
As previously stated, to calculate the impact of the assessment rate on the revenue of an assessment payer, the assessment rate is divided by an average price. Using an average 2015 price of $330 per thousand board feet, the assessment rate as a percentage of price could range from 0.106 percent at the current assessment rate to 0.151 percent at the maximum assessment rate. This analysis helps identify the impact of the assessment rate on the revenues of assessment payers. At the current assessment rate of $0.35 per thousand board feet to the maximum assessment rate of $0.50 per thousand board feet, assessment payers would owe between 0.106 percent and 0.151 percent of their revenues, respectively.
In its analysis of alternatives, USDA evaluated five different exemption thresholds—30, 25, 20, 15 and 10 mmbf using 2015 data—accounting for both the de minimis and equity exemptions, as well as having no exemptions under the program. USDA evaluated these alternatives based on the following factors: An estimate of quantity of softwood lumber covered under the program (quantity assessed and quantity exempted); available funding to support a viable program; free rider implications; and the impact of program requirements on entities (above and below a de minimis threshold). USDA conducted a balancing test among these factors to assess whether one exemption threshold works better than another when the factors are considered collectively.
In reviewing the quantity of assessable versus exempt softwood lumber at the alternative exemption thresholds, USDA found that at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, a total of 32.805 bbf would be assessed with 3.284 bbf, or 8 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 5.16 bbf exempt as equity for 20 percent of total volume exempt; at 25 mmbf, a total of 33.694 bbf would be assessed with 2.93 bbf, or 7 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 4.625 bbf exempt as equity for 18 percent total volume exempt; at a threshold of 20 mmbf, a total of 34.69 bbf would be assessed with 2.259 bbf, or 5 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 4.3 bbf exempt as equity for 16 percent total volume exempt; at a threshold of 15 mmbf, a total of 35.854 bbf would be assessed with 1.57 bbf, or 4 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 3.825 bbf exempt as equity for 13 percent total volume exempt; at a threshold of 10 mmbf, a total of 37.183 bbf would be assessed, with 1.236 bbf, or 3 percent, exempt as de minimis, plus an additional 2.83 bbf exempt as equity for 10 percent total volume exempt; and with no exemptions, a total of 41.249 bbf would be assessed. In reviewing the total volume exempt under the softwood lumber program (taking into account both the de minimis and equity exemptions), thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf exempt between 10 and 13 percent of the volume, which is close to the range exempt under other programs.
In reviewing available funding to support a viable program at the alternative exemption thresholds, at an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $11.482 million; at 25 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $11.793 million (an additional $311,243); at a threshold of 20 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $12.141 million (an additional $348,408); at a threshold of 15 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $12.549 million (an additional $407,444); at a threshold of 10 mmbf, estimated assessment revenue is $13.014 million (an additional $465,267); and with no exemptions, estimated assessment revenue is $14.437 million (an additional $1.423 million).
Assessment revenue under the current softwood lumber program has ranged from about $10.638 million in 2012 to $12.905 million in 2015. At this level of revenue, the current program has seen success. The revenues reviewed at the different exemption thresholds are comparable to these levels or higher. Thus, all of the exemption thresholds analyzed would generate sufficient revenue for a viable program.
Regarding free riders, USDA notes that the key to assessing the free rider implications of a de minimis quantity is not the number of entities exempt under a program but rather the
In evaluating the impact of the program's requirements at the alternative exemption thresholds, entities that ship or import at or above the de minimis threshold must pay assessments to the Board. Assessment payers must also submit a report to the Board each quarter of the volume of softwood lumber shipped or imported for the respective quarter. Entities that ship or import below the de minimis threshold must apply to the Board each year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as appropriate to support their request. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements are detailed in the section below titled Paperwork Reduction Act.
At an exemption threshold of 30 mmbf, 172 entities would pay assessments and 882 would be exempt; at 25 mmbf, 185 entities would pay assessments and 869 would be exempt; at 20 mmbf, 215 entities would pay assessments and 839 would be exempt; at 15 mmbf, 255 entities would pay assessments and 799 would be exempt; at 10 mmbf, 283 entities would pay assessments and 771 would be exempt. Thus, as the exemption threshold is reduced, more entities would be subject to the Order's assessment and quarterly reporting obligation.
Further, in considering program compliance costs, USDA estimates the cost of an on-site audit of a single entity at $5,000 or more. Thus, the cost to pursue a compliance case against an entity that shipped less than 10 mmbf, 9 mmbf for example, would outweigh the revenue that would be collected from that entity of $3,150. Similarly, the assessment revenue that would be collected from an entity that shipped less than 15 mmbf, 12 mmbf for example, would amount to $4,200. The benefit of assessing smaller manufacturers, $3,150 at 9 mmbf and $4,200 at 12 mmbf, does not outweigh the cost of pursuing compliance cases against them at $5,000 per entity. The point at which the assessment revenue that would be collected from an entity outweighs the estimated cost of $5,000 to pursue a compliance case is an entity with volume equal to or greater than 14.3 mmbf.
Analysis of the 23 mmbf-RFA small business threshold as a reasonable option for de minimis shows that 190 entities would be subject to assessment and 864 entities would be exempt. In terms of volume, 38.44 bbf would be assessed, or 93 percent of total volume, and 2.809 bbf would be exempt, or 7 percent of total volume.
Based upon the analysis contained herein, any of the exemption threshold reviewed would be reasonable because they would exempt from 3 to 8 percent of the volume of softwood lumber as de minimis. However, when the total volume exempt under the softwood lumber program is considered (taking into account both the de minimis and equity exemptions), thresholds of 10 to 15 mmbf exempt between 10 and 13 percent of the volume, which is close to the range exempt under other programs. While all of the exemption thresholds would generate sufficient revenue for a viable program, the additional revenue that could be collected if the de minimis level were reduced much lower than 15 mmbf would likely not be worth the additional costs. The softwood lumber program operated successfully since its inception at an exemption threshold of 15 mmbf.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the Order have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. This proposal imposes no additional reporting and recordkeeping burden on domestic manufacturer and importers of softwood lumber. The reporting requirements pertaining to this proposed rule are described in the following paragraphs.
As previously mentioned, pursuant to section 1217.53(a) of the Order, domestic manufacturers and importers who domestically ship or import less than the de minimis threshold must apply to the Board each year for a certificate of exemption and provide documentation as appropriate to support their request. The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per domestic manufacturer or importer per report, or 0.25 hours per year (1 request per year per exempt entity). This computes to a total annual burden of 199.75 hours (0.25 hours times 799 exempt entities at the 15 mmbf de minimis exemption threshold from Table 4).
Further, pursuant to section 1217.70 of the Order, domestic manufacturers and importers that ship or import at or over the de minimis exemption level and pay their assessments directly to the Board must submit a shipment/import report for each quarter when assessments are due. The reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per domestic manufacturer or importer per report, or 2 hours per year (4 reports per year times 0.5 hours per report). This computes to a total annual burden of 510 hours (255 assessed entities (from Table 4—No. of Assessed Entities at 15 mmbf) at 2 hours each equals 510 hours).
All domestic manufacturers and importers must also maintain records sufficient to verify their reports. The recordkeeping burden for keeping this information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per record keeper maintaining such records, or 527 hours (1,054 total entities assessed (from Table 4—No. of Assessed Entities at no exemption) times 0.5 hours).
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
USDA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
Regarding outreach efforts, USDA initiated this action in response to a May 2016 federal court decision in
We have performed this initial RFA analysis regarding the impact of the proposed action on small entities and we invite comments concerning the potential effects of this action.
USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and would effectuate the purposes of the 1996 Act.
A 60-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments received in response to this proposed rule by the date specified will be considered.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Consumer information, Marketing agreements, Promotion, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Softwood lumber.
The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1217 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. This proposed AD would require replacing the fastener assemblies. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. Bolts on existing fastener assemblies for the crew ladder handrail are too short to ensure self-locking nut elements are fully engaged. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails coming loose, which could result in serious or fatal injury to personnel.
We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing fastener assemblies with new assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures, see this service information at
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin, 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016, applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes. This proposed AD would apply to those airplanes and all Model 747-8F airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued after November 10, 2016. Because the affected parts are rotable parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 84 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.
(2) Model 747-8F series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued after November 10, 2016, and before the effective date of this AD.
(3) Model 747-8F series airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness, or an original export certificate of airworthiness, issued on or after the effective date of this AD.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25; Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. We are issuing this AD to prevent the fastener assemblies from coming loose on the crew access ladder handrails, which could result in serious or fatal injury to personnel.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the fastener assemblies in the crew access ladder handrails with new fastener assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.
(1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual inspection of the crew access ladder handrails for the discrepant fastener assembly hardware identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection, if the part number(s) of the fastener assembly hardware can be conclusively determined from that review.
(2) If any discrepant fastener assembly hardware is found, within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the discrepant fastener assemblies in the crew access ladder handrails with new fastener assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.
For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install the discrepant fastener hardware identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016, on a crew access ladder on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sérj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final rule titled “Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review, Flammability Reduction, and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements” (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements that rule included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (“SFAR 88”) at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR 88 was amended by: Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 10, 2002; corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR 72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to change “21-82” to “21-83”).
Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (
In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four criteria intended to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under evaluation: Single failures, combination of failures, and unacceptable (failure) experience. For all three failure criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
This proposed AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. In addition, during one event on a Model MD-11 airplane that occurred during flight, a level 1 message “TAIL L PUMP OFF” was annunciated; investigation of the wire bundles in the horizontal stabilizer next to the tail fuel tank revealed burned and broken wires, which showed severe signs of overheating and arcing. This is considered a quality control issue because the type design harnesses were not installed properly during the required SFAR 88 modifications.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside the tail fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016. The service information describes procedures for a one-time detailed inspection of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel tank transfer pumps to determine if metallic transitions are installed at the wire harness breakouts, and corrective actions that include repair and replacement of the wire assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
On May 14, 2010, we issued AD 2010-11-12, Amendment 39-16317 (75 FR 30274, June 1, 2010) (“AD 2010-11-12”), for certain Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2010-11-12 requires a one-time inspection to determine if metallic transitions are installed on wire harnesses of the tail fuel tank transfer pumps, and to inspect for and repair damaged wires. AD 2010-11-12 also requires repetitive inspections of repaired areas; and a permanent modification of the wire harnesses if metallic transitions are not installed, which would terminate the repetitive inspections. AD 2010-11-12 also requires modifying the case grounding for the alternate fuel pump of the tail fuel tank, the leak detection thermal switch grounding for the number 2 engine, and wire braid grounding in the empennage and number 2 engine inlet. We issued AD 2010-11-12 to prevent insufficient grounding of the fuel pump, which, in combination with an electrical failure within the fuel pump and a compromised electrical bond, could cause a fuel tank ignition, resulting in consequent fire or explosion.
On January 3, 2011, we issued AD 2011-02-01, Amendment 39-16574 (76 FR 1983, January 12, 2011) (“AD 2011-02-01”), for certain Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes. AD 2011-02-01 requires a one-time inspection to detect damage of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel tank fuel system, a wiring change, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2011-02-01 also requires, for certain airplanes, a general visual inspection for correct installation of the self-adhering high-temperature electrical insulation tape; installation of a wire assembly support bracket and routing wire assembly; changing of certain wire supports; and installation of a wire protection bracket. We issued AD 2011-02-01 to detect and correct a potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
This proposed AD would not supersede or terminate the actions required by AD 2010-11-12 and AD 2011-02-01. Certain airplanes identified in the related rulemaking may not have the correct wire harness with metallic transitions installed; therefore this proposed AD would address the unsafe condition on those airplanes.
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously.
The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” are actions that correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 110 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs/replacements:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Boeing Company Model MD-11 and MD-11F airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28; Fuel.
This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct potential ignition sources inside the tail fuel tank, which, in combination with flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank fire or explosion, and consequent loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 27 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a one-time detailed inspection of the wire assemblies of the tail fuel tank transfer pumps to determine if metallic transitions are installed at the wire harness breakouts, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016. If metallic transitions are installed, no further action is required by this paragraph. If metallic transitions are not installed, do the corrective actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, except as required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
(1) Repair any affected wire assembly before further flight, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016, or replace any affected wire assembly with a new assembly before further flight, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016. If the replacement is done, no further action is required for that wire assembly only.
(2) Within 24 months after accomplishment of the repair required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Replace any repaired wire assembly with a new assembly, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016.
(1) Where Part 4.1.f. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016, specifies “CONTROLLER FUEL SYSTEM—ADJUSTMENT/TEST refer to MD-11, AMM (Airplane Maintenance Manual) 28-28-01 as an accepted procedure”: Adjust and test the controller fuel system. If the test fails do corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable corrective actions until the system passes the test.
(2) Where Part 4.1.g. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016, specifies “OPERATIONAL TEST OF THE FILL SHUTOFF VALVE CONTROLLER refer to MD-11 AMM 26-21—02, as an accepted procedure”: Do the operational test of the part. If the part fails the test, do corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable corrective actions until the part passes the test.
(3) Where Part 4.1.h. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD11-28A150, dated October 6, 2016, specifies “SWITCH, PUMP LOW PRESSURE—ADJUSTMENT/TEST, refer to MD-11 AMM 28-44-01, as an accepted procedure”: Do the operational test of the part. If the part fails the test, do corrective actions, repeat the test, and do applicable corrective actions until the part passes the test.
(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sérj Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5254; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that could remain hidden to the flight crew. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance, and replacement of the pitot probe heater if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0248, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
An operator reported a reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over the time. Pitot probes are heated to prevent ice accretion. De-icing performances of the Pitot probe might be reduced if Pitot probe heater degrades over time. Investigation results highlighted that the magnitude of de-icing performance reduction depended on how much the [pitot probe] heater is degraded. This degradation could remain hidden to the crew.
Pitot probes heater degradation, if not detected and corrected, could lead to unreliable airspeed indications, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To ensure nominal de-icing performances of the Pitot probe, Airbus developed an inspection process to check the pitot [probe] heater performance, and published Service Bulletin (SB) A300-34-0185 to provide the necessary instructions to operators.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of the pitot [probe] heater, and, depending on findings, replacement with a serviceable one.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance and replacement of the pitot probe heater. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.
This AD was prompted by a report of reduction of the de-icing performance of the pitot probe over time that could remain hidden to the flight crew. We are issuing this AD to ensure nominal de-icing performance of the pitot probe in order to prevent unreliable airspeed indications, which could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
For the purpose of this AD, affected pitot probes are the First Officer's Pitot Probe 40DA, Captain's Pitot Probe 41DA, and Standby Pitot Probe 42DA.
At the time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do a detailed inspection of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance on each affected pitot probe, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
(1) Within 24 months since the last detailed inspection of the pitot probe heater insulation resistance, as specified in Airbus A300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Task 30-31-00.
(2) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
If, during any detailed inspection as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any pitot probe fails the test, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, before further flight, replace the affected pitot probe with a serviceable (new or inspected as required by this AD) pitot probe, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016. Replacement of pitot probes, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
At the applicable times required by paragraphs (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-34-0185, Revision 00, dated August 29, 2016, to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (
(1) For inspections done before the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(2) For inspections done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after accomplishing each inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0248, dated December 15, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that, under certain operational takeoff conditions, the available thrust in relation with the N1 indication is less than a certified value, which could affect the safety margins with an engine failure during takeoff. This proposed AD would require modifying each engine by updating the electronic engine control (EEC) software and adjusting the engine N1 trim value, and revising the airplane flight manual. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For Dassault service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0063, dated March 31, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
A review of the Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) 307A engine data files has disclosed that, under certain operational take-off conditions (high altitude runway and low temperature), the available thrust in relation with N1 indication is less than certified and described in the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM).
This condition, if not corrected, affects the safety margins with an engine failure during take-off, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, PWC developed an interim correction [
Concurrently with these developments, Dassault Aviation published SB 7X-287 to provide aeroplane modification instructions and also revised the performance charts relevant to the new thrust rating, available with AFM Revision 21 (incorporating Temporary Revision CP098).
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires modification of each engine, installation of the new software version, and amendment of the applicable AFM.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Dassault Falcon 7X AFM, Revision 21, dated November 20, 2015, which incorporates AFM CP098 (provides performance charts relevant to the new thrust rating).
We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-287, also referred to as 287, dated January 4, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying each engine installed on the airplane by updating the EEC, which includes performing tests after removal and installation of the EEC.
We reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47202, Revision 3, also referred to as 47202R3, dated March 10, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying an engine by adjusting the engine N1 trim value for PW307A engines.
We reviewed Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47216, also referred to as 47216, dated January 13, 2016. This service information describes procedures for modifying each engine installed on the airplane by updating the EEC, which includes installing software EEC version 307A0514.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The MCAI specifies modifying each engine installed on the airplane by adjusting the engine N1 trim value within 30 days. In this proposed AD, the engine N1 trim adjustment is required prior to or concurrently with the engine modification to update the EEC software, which is required within 12 months. We have determined that this compliance time adequately addresses the identified unsafe condition and provides an acceptable level of safety.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 62 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except airplanes modified with Dassault Aviation modification (Mod) M1389.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 76, Engine Controls.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that, under certain operational takeoff conditions, the available thrust in relation with the N1 indication is less than a certified value, which could affect the safety margins with an engine failure during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to prevent a reduction in available engine thrust during certain operational takeoff conditions, which could affect the safety margins with an engine failure during takeoff and could result in reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify each engine installed on the airplane by updating the electronic engine control (EEC) (installation of software EEC version 307A0514), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-287, also referred to as 287, dated January 4, 2016; and Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47216, also referred to as 47216, dated January 13, 2016.
Concurrently with the modification of an airplane required by paragraph (g) of this AD, revise the applicable AFM of that airplane by inserting a copy of Dassault Falcon 7X AFM, Revision 21, dated November 20, 2015 (incorporating AFM CP098).
Prior to or concurrently with the modification of an airplane required by paragraph (g) of this AD, modify each engine installed on the airplane by adjusting the engine N1 trim value, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47202, Revision 3, also referred to as 47202R3, dated March 10, 2016.
After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, installation of a replacement engine on that airplane is allowed, provided that, prior to installation, it is positively established that the engine embodies software EEC version 307A0514. Modification of a pre-mod engine to embody this software can be accomplished in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47216, also referred to as 47216, dated January 13, 2016.
Installation of a replacement engine or replacement EEC unit on an airplane after the effective date of this AD, which embodies a later software EEC version, is acceptable for compliance with paragraph (g) of this AD, provided the conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD are met.
(1) The software EEC version must be approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
(2) The installation must be accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using service information in paragraph (l)(1), (l)(2), or (l)(3) of this AD.
(1) Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47202, also referred to as 47202, dated June 17, 2014.
(2) Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47202, Revision 1, also referred to as 47202R1, dated November 18, 2014.
(3) Pratt & Whitney Canada Service Bulletin PW300-72-47202, Revision 2, also referred to as 47202R2, dated January 5, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0063, dated March 31, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For Dassault service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-17-02 for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2016-17-02 currently requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include procedures to follow when an airplane is operating in icing conditions. AD 2016-17-02 also provides optional actions after which the AFM revision may be removed from the AFM. Since we issued AD 2016-17-02, we have determined additional actions are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the requirement of AD 2016-17-02 and, in addition, require a detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting (anti-ice pipes) for the presence of a diaphragm, and replacement of ducting or re-identification of the ducting part marking. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 14, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On August 5, 2016, we issued AD 2016-17-02, Amendment 39-18615 (81 FR 55366, August 19, 2016) (“AD 2016-17-02”), for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. AD 2016-17-02 was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. A deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting could lead to undetected, reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics of the airplane. AD 2016-17-02 requires revising the AFM to include procedures to follow when an airplane is operating in icing conditions. AD 2016-17-02 also provides optional actions after which the AFM revision may be removed from the AFM. We issued AD-2016-17-02 to ensure the flight crew has procedures for operating an airplane in icing conditions.
When we issued AD 2016-17-02, we stated that it was an interim action and we were considering additional rulemaking to require a detailed inspection of the wing anti-icing system ducting for the presence of a diaphragm and, as applicable, re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-icing system ducting (these actions are required by the MCAI). We have determined that requiring those additional actions are necessary to address the identified unsafe condition.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:
A design review of in production aeroplanes identified a manufacturing deficiency of some wing anti-ice system ducting.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an undetected reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.
The Falcon 900EX EASY and Falcon . . . [2000EX] Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) contain a normal procedure 4-200-05A, “Operations in Icing Conditions”, addressing minimum fan speed rotation (N1) during combined operation of wing anti-ice and engine anti-ice systems. The subsequent investigation demonstrated that the wing anti-ice system performance for aeroplanes equipped with ducting affected by the manufacturing deficiency can be restored increasing N1 value. In addition, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX-464 (for Falcon 900EX aeroplanes) and SB F2000EX-393 (for Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes), providing instructions for wing anti-ice system ducting inspection.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an AFM amendment and a one-time [detailed] inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting [and, as applicable, a check of the part number,] and, depending on findings, re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting and re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The action required by AD 2016-17-02, and retained in this proposed AD takes about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the action that is required by AD 2016-17-02 is $85 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $17,680, or $340 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 19 work-hours and require parts costing $24,000, for a cost of $25,615 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by July 14, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2016-17-02, Amendment 39-18615 (81 FR 55366, August 19, 2016) (“AD 2016-17-02”).
This AD applies to the Dassault Aviation airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model Falcon 900EX airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 270 through 291 inclusive and 294.
(2) Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, S/Ns 263 through 305 inclusive, 307 through 313 inclusive, 315, 320, and 701 through 734 inclusive.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.
This AD was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting, which could result in reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system with potential ice accretion and ingestion, and could result in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-17-02, with no changes.
(1) For Model Falcon 900EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after September 6, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-17-02), revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model Falcon 900EX AFM to include the information in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(2) For Model Falcon 2000EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-393 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after September 6, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-17-02), revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model Falcon 2000EX AFM to include the information in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
Within 9 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting (anti-ice pipes) for the presence of a diaphragm, and do all applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; or Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016; as applicable. After the applicable actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD have been completed, the AFM revision required by
(1) If during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is present: Before further flight, replace the wing anti-ice system ducting.
(2) If during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD it is determined that a diaphragm is not present: Before further flight, do a check of the anti-ice pipe part number and re-identify the wing anti-ice system ducting.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of petition.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that BASF Corp. has filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of formic acid as a feed acidifying agent in complete poultry feeds.
The food additive petition was filed on February 10, 2017.
Chelsea Trull, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-6729,
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), notice is given that a food additive petition (FAP 2301) has been filed by BASF Corp., 100 Park Ave., Florham Park, NJ 07932. The petition proposes to amend Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 573 (21 CFR part 573)
The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because it is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. In addition, the petitioner has stated that to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice of settlement and proposed rule.
The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) publish for comment proposed regulations to require covered cable systems to pay a separate per-telecast royalty (a Sports Surcharge) in addition to the other royalties that that cable system must pay under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.
Comments are due no later than June 20, 2017.
Submit electronic comments via email to
Anita Brown-Blaine, Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658, or by email at
On January 11, 2017, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) received a motion from the Joint Sports Claimants (JSC),
On February 7, 2017, the Judges issued an order in which they suspended the procedural schedule they established by order dated June 22, 2016, pending the Judges' review of the moving parties' settlement agreement and publication of the agreement for public comment. The Judges stated that they would defer decision on adoption of the settlement agreement and termination of the proceeding until after they consider comments, if any, filed in response to publication of the settlement notice. This notice is further to the Judges' February 7, 2017 Order.
Section 111(d)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B), sets forth the royalty rates that “Form 3” cable systems must pay to retransmit broadcast signals pursuant to the Section 111(c) statutory license. Form 3 systems are those with semi-annual “gross receipts” greater than $527,600.
In the event of any change in the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission [“FCC”] with respect to syndicated and sports program exclusivity after April 15, 1976, the rates established by section 111(d)(1)(B) may be adjusted to assure that such rates are reasonable in light of the changes to such rules and regulations, but any such adjustment shall apply only to the affected television broadcast signals carried on those systems affected by the change.
Section 804(b)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act states that, in “order to initiate proceedings under section [801(b)(2)(C)],” an interested party must file a petition with the Judges requesting a rate change within twelve months of the FCC's action. 17 U.S.C. 804(b)(1)(B);
On November 23, 2015, JSC filed a rate adjustment petition pursuant to Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the Copyright Act. In their June 22 Order, the Judges established a procedural schedule for ruling on the JSC petition. While the moving parties were unable to settle this matter during the voluntary negotiation period established by the June 22 Order, they continued those negotiations and now agree that this proceeding should be terminated with the adoption of the proposed rule set forth in Exhibit A to the joint motion.
The proposed rule would require covered cable systems to pay a separate per-telecast royalty (a Sports Surcharge) in addition to the other royalties that that cable system must pay under Section 111 of the Copyright Act. Joint Motion at 3. The Sports Surcharge would amount to 0.025 percent of the cable system's “gross receipts” during the relevant semi-annual accounting period for the secondary transmission of each affected broadcast of a sports event, provided that all of the conditions of the proposed rule are satisfied. Thus, if a covered cable system made a secondary transmission of one affected broadcast, it would pay 0.025 percent of “gross receipts” during the relevant semi-annual accounting period for that transmission; if it made secondary transmissions of two affected broadcasts, it would pay 0.025 percent of “gross receipts” during the relevant semi-annual accounting period for each of those transmissions (or a total of 0.050 percent of its “gross receipts”).
Section 801(b)(2)(C) of the Act states that any rate adopted in this proceeding “shall apply only to the affected television broadcast signals carried on those systems affected by the change.” Furthermore, moving parties note that Section 801(b)(2)(C) authorizes the Judges to adjust only the royalty rates set forth in Section 111(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The moving parties also note that Section 111(d)(3)(A) of the Act permits the distribution of royalties only to copyright owners of distant signal “non-network television programs.” Joint Motion at 3-4.
The moving parties note that, consistent with the statutory mandates discussed above, the proposed rule, summarized below, limits the circumstances under which cable systems must pay the Sports Surcharge. Under the proposal:
According to the moving parties, the royalty rate reflected in the proposed rule represents a negotiated compromise based upon current market and regulatory conditions as well as various other factors and does not represent the fair market value of any secondary transmission of a sports event. None of the moving parties believes that the proposed rule should be considered precedential in any way for any purpose. The moving parties recognize that the proposed rule, if adopted, may be reconsidered in 2020 and every five years thereafter.
According to the moving parties, a key Congressional objective underlying the Judges' rate-setting authority is the promotion of voluntary settlements rather than litigation. Joint Motion at 5, citing H.R. Rep. No. 108-408 at 24 (2004) (referring to the legislative policy of “facilitating and encouraging settlement agreements for determining royalty rates”);
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Act is clear that the Judges have the authority to adopt settlements between some or all of the participants to a proceeding
The Act requires that the Judges afford those who “would be bound by the terms, rates or other determination” in a settlement agreement “an opportunity to comment on the agreement.” 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(i). The moving parties note that the Copyright Royalty Board rules also contemplate that the Judges will “publish the settlement in the
Interested parties may comment and object to any or all of the proposed regulations contained in this notice. Such comments and objections must be submitted no later than June 20, 2017.
Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. If not commenting by email or online, commenters must submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an electronic version on a CD.
Copyright, Cable television, Royalties.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of chapter 8, title 17, United States Code, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR chapter III as follows:
17 U.S.C. 801(b)(2), 803(b)(6).
(e)
(1) The term “cable system” shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(3);
(2) A “covered cable system”:
(i) Is a “community unit,” as the comparable term is defined or interpreted in accordance with § 76.5(dd) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(dd) (2014);
(ii) That is located in whole or in part within the 35-mile specified zone of a television broadcast station licensed to a community in which a sports event is taking place, provided that if there is no television broadcast station licensed to the community in which a sports event is taking place, the applicable specified zone shall be that of the television broadcast station licensed to the community with which the sports event or team is identified, or, if the event or local team is not identified with any particular community, the nearest community to which a television station is licensed; and
(iii) Whose royalty fee is specified by 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B);
(3) A “television broadcast” of a sports event must qualify as a “non-network television program” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(3)(A);
(4) An “eligible professional sports event” is a game involving teams that are members of the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, or the Women's National Basketball Association;
(5) An “eligible collegiate sports event” is a game involving a football or men's basketball team that is a member of Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association on whose behalf the FCC Sports Blackout Rule (47 CFR 76.111) was invoked during the period from January 1, 2012 to November 23, 2014;
(6) The term “specified zone” shall be defined as the comparable term is defined or interpreted in accordance with Section § 76.5(e) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.5(e) (2014);
(7) The term “gross receipts” shall have the same meaning as in 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(1)(B) and shall include all gross receipts of the covered cable system during the semiannual accounting period except those from the covered cable system's subscribers who reside in:
(i) The local service area of the primary transmitter, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 111(f)(4);
(ii) Any community where the cable system has fewer than 1000 subscribers;
(iii) Any community located wholly outside the specified zone referenced in paragraph (e)(1) above; and
(iv) Any community where the primary transmitter was lawfully carried prior to March 31, 1972;
(8) The term “FCC Sports Blackout Rule” refers to § 76.111 of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR76.111 (2014);
(9) Subject to paragraph (e)(10) of this section, the surcharge will apply to the secondary transmission of the primary transmission of a live television broadcast of a sports event only where the holder of the broadcast rights to the sports event or its agent has given the covered cable system advance written notice regarding such secondary transmission as required by the former § 76.111(b) of the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect as of November 23, 2014, 47 CFR 76.111(b) & (c) (2014); and
(10) In the case of collegiate sports events:
(i) The holder of the broadcast rights or its agent also must attest that the specific team on whose behalf the surcharge notice is given meets the eligibility condition specified in paragraph (e)(5) of this section and provide documentary evidence in support thereof; and
(ii) The number of events involving a specific team as to which a covered cable system must pay the surcharge will be no greater than the largest number of events as to which the Sports Blackout Rule (47 CFR 76.111) was invoked in a particular geographic area by such team during any one of the accounting periods occurring between January 1, 2012 and November 23, 2014.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to a best available retrofit technology (BART) alternative measure for the Verso Luke Paper Mill (the Mill) submitted by the State of Maryland. Maryland requests new emissions limits for sulfur dioxide (SO
Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0783 at
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814-2166, or by email at
Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused by air pollution, principally by fine particulate matter (PM
In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national parks and wilderness areas.
The RHR requires each state's regional haze implementation plan to contain emission limitations representing best available retrofit technology (BART) and schedules for compliance with BART for each source subject to BART, unless the state demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. The requirements for alternative measures are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
In addition to demonstrating greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility, among other things, the RHR also requires that all necessary emission reductions from a BART alternative take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze (
Maryland's regional haze SIP was submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on February 13, 2012 and approved by EPA in June 2012.
On November 28, 2016, the State of Maryland through the MDE submitted to EPA a revision to the Maryland regional haze SIP consisting of a BART alternative measure for Verso Luke Paper Mill. The SIP revision seeks to revise the BART strategy for the Verso Luke Paper Mill, including specifically the emission limits for power boiler 25 for SO
MDE states that Verso Luke Paper Mill is eliminating the use of coal as a source of fuel used in power boiler 24 and replacing it with natural gas. MDE's SIP revision submittal seeks alternative BART emission limits for SO
MDE's analysis demonstrates that the alternative SO
Thus, with the additional SO
In addition, EPA finds that this SIP revision, which seeks to remove BART SO
EPA has reviewed Maryland's SIP revision seeking an alternative BART measure and emission limits for power boiler 24 (and SO
EPA also finds that this SIP revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve Maryland's November 28, 2016 SIP revision submittal as it meets CAA requirements.
In this proposed 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 permit requirements for power boilers 24 and 25 issued August 17, 2016 for Verso Luke Paper Mill, which include alternative emission requirements, as well as monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for power boilers 24 and 25 as discussed in section II of this notice of proposed rulemaking and the TSD. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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).
In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to alternative BART emission limits for Verso Luke Paper Mill, does
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of a revision to the District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the District of Columbia (the District) through the District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). The District's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze SIP). EPA is proposing approval of the District's SIP revision because EPA has determined that it satisfactorily addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze. This action is being taken under the CAA.
Written comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0267 at
Sara Calcinore, (215) 814-2043, or by email at
On March 2, 2016, the District submitted, as a SIP revision (progress report SIP), a report on progress made for visibility improvement in the first implementation period. This progress report SIP included a determination that the existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals.
States are required to submit, in the form of a SIP revision, a progress report that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area within the state and in each mandatory Class I federal area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision that addresses, at a minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the progress report requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible actions based on information in the progress report. As described in further detail in section III of this rulemaking action, to meet the adequacy determination requirement, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or
This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be addressed by the progress report under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g); how the District's progress report SIP addressed each element; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the District satisfied each element.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. The District evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2011 regional haze SIP in accordance with the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The measures included applicable federal programs (
EPA proposes to find that the District's analysis adequately addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). In the regional haze SIP, the District documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP and describes additional measures that came into effect since the District's regional haze SIP was completed, including new regulations and various federal measures. EPA proposes to conclude that the District has adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP, as required by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), by discussing the status of key measures that were relied upon in the first implementation period.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) require the state to provide a summary of the emissions reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The district provided an assessment of the following visibility impairing pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with Class I areas provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values:
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP, the District presents emissions inventories for 2002, 2008, and 2011, as well as projected inventories for 2018, in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). The pollutants inventoried include VOCs, NO
EPA proposes to conclude that the District has adequately addressed the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While, ideally, the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the five-year time period between submittal of the current regional haze SIP and the progress report, availability of quality-assured data may not always correspond with this period. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period states can select for tracking emissions changes to meet this requirement where more recent data is not available. EPA believes that the District presented an adequate analysis tracking emissions trends for the key visibility impairing pollutant, SO
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of whether the current regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. The District does not contain any Class I areas, and emissions from the District were found to not impact any Class I areas.
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of a state's visibility monitoring strategy for visibility impairing pollutants and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. The District does not contain any Class I areas. In its progress report SIP, the District states that there are no Class I areas within its boundaries, and therefore it is not required to fulfill this provision. EPA proposes to conclude that the District is exempt from addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7), as that requirement is solely for states with Class I areas in their borders.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: The action taken by the District under 40 CFR 51.308(h); the District's rationale for the selected action; and EPA's analysis and proposed determination regarding the District's action.
In its progress report SIP, the District submitted a negative declaration that it had determined that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further substantive revision to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas (as the District does not have any Class I areas nor does it impact any Class I areas). The basis for the District's negative declaration is the findings from the progress report (as discussed in section III of this rulemaking action), including the findings that: SO
Thus, EPA proposes to conclude that the District adequately addressed the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(h), because decreasing emissions of visibility impairing pollutants, lack of Class I area impact from pollution sources within the District, and progress of regional Class I areas near the District towards RPGs for 2018 indicate that no further revisions to the District's SIP are necessary for this first regional haze implementation period. EPA solicits comments on this proposal.
EPA is proposing to approve the District's regional haze five-year progress report SIP revision, submitted on March 2, 2016, as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
In this proposed rulemaking, 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 District of Columbia's progress report SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 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
• 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).
In addition, this proposed rule, which proposes approval of the District's progress report SIP, does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reopening the public comment period on the proposed rule “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon: Permitting and General Rule Revisions” published March 22, 2017. A commenter requested more time to review the proposal and prepare comments. In response, the EPA is providing an additional 30 days for public comment.
For the proposed rule published March 22, 2017 (82 FR 14654), comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0333, at
Kristin Hall, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency—Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave. Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-6357; email address:
On March 22, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to approve changes to the Oregon State Implementation Plan (82 FR 14654). The changes, submitted by the State of Oregon on April 22, 2015, account for new federal requirements for fine particulate matter, update the major and minor source pre-construction permitting programs, and add state level air quality designations. The changes also address public notice procedures for informational meetings, and tighten emission standards for dust and smoke. A commenter requested more time to review the proposal and prepare comments. In response to this request, the EPA is reopening the public comment period.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On December 20, 2016, Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0086 at
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the 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. Sean Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043, or via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to take the following separate but related actions: (1) To approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) to approve Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA's 2006 24-hour PM
On June 2, 2014, EPA published a rule entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM
Based on its moderate nonattainment area classification, Tennessee was required to submit a SIP revision addressing RACM pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) for the Area. Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM must be approved into a SIP prior to redesignation of an area to attainment once that area is attaining the NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporate it into its SIP pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) in
EPA also proposes to approve Tennessee's maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area as meeting the requirements of section 175A (such approval being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status) and incorporate it into the SIP. The maintenance plan is designed to help keep the Knoxville Area in attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA also proposes to determine that the Knoxville Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and the portion of Roane County within the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
In summary, this proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's December 20, 2016, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the redesignation of the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM
On November 13, 2009, at 74 FR 58688, EPA designated the Knoxville Area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
On July 29, 2016, EPA issued a rule entitled, “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (PM
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and the Agency supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);
2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and
3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Nichols Memorandum”).
On December 20, 2016, Tennessee requested that EPA redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to: (1) Approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area and incorporate it into the Tennessee SIP; (2) approve the 2006 PM
As noted above, there are a number of planning requirements in the CAA that are designed to help areas achieve attainment or demonstrate progress toward attainment. Where those areas are already attaining the NAAQS in question, EPA has long interpreted these requirements as not applicable for purposes of evaluating whether an area has a fully approved SIP pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Subpart 1 requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emission from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”
EPA reads CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C), and EPA's implementing regulations, together to require that attainment plans for moderate nonattainment areas must provide for the implementation of RACM for existing sources of PM
In this action, EPA proposes to approve Tennessee's December 20, 2016 RACM submission. In that submission, Tennessee did not identify any measures necessary to bring the Area into attainment, nor any measures that would advance attainment of the Area, because the Area is already attaining the 2006 24-hour PM
The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For PM
EPA has evaluated complete, quality-assured data for the Area from 2013-2015, and as mentioned above, has made a preliminary determination that the Area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM
As shown in Table 1, above, the Knoxville Area has a 2013-2015 design value of 20 μg/m
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Knoxville Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) if EPA takes final action to incorporate Tennessee's RACM determination into the SIP pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (
EPA has reviewed Tennessee's SIP and has preliminarily concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Tennessee's SIP addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements including provisions addressing the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a determination of attainment, published in the
EPA's long-standing interpretation regarding the applicability of the section 172(c) attainment planning requirements for an area that is attaining a NAAQS applies in this proposed redesignation of the Area as well, with the exception of the applicability of the requirement to implement RACM under section 172(c)(1). As discussed above, the Sixth Circuit ruled in
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. Under this requirement, a state must consider all available control measures, including reductions that are available from adopting reasonably available control technology on existing sources, for a nonattainment area and adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available in the area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. As discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporate it into the SIP.
As noted above, the remaining section 172(c) attainment planning requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating the State's redesignation request. Specifically, the RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, and the section 172(c)(6) requirement that the SIP contain control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the standard, are not applicable requirements that Tennessee
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On June 10, 2014 (79 FR 33097), EPA approved Tennessee's 2008 base-year emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NNSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without NNSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the Nichols Memorandum.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that the Tennessee SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under Subpart 4,
The permit requirements of Subpart 4, contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the Subpart 1 permit provisions requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM
Therefore, because the requirement of section 189(e) is primarily actionable in the context of addressing precursors in an attainment plan and in NNSR permitting, a precursor exemption analysis under section 189(e) and EPA's implementing regulations is not an applicable requirement that needs be fully approved in the context of a redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed above, for areas that are attaining the standard, EPA does not interpret attainment planning requirements of Subparts 1 and 4 to be applicable requirements for the purposes of redesignating an area to attainment nor does it interpret NNSR to be an applicable requirement if the area can maintain the NAAQS with a PSD program after redesignation. However, to the extent that Tennessee is required to conduct a precursor exemption analysis in order to satisfy 189(e) in the context of its RACM determination for the Knoxville Area, which is required pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's decision in
For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of the Knoxville Area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Knoxville Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation with the exception of the RACM requirements. In today's proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve the RACM determination for the Area and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. If EPA finalizes approval of the RACM determination, EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable under the 2006 24-hour PM
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Knoxville Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from federal measures and a 2011 consent decree between Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in particulate matter and its precursors. The federal measures that have been implemented include:
In 2008, the D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the Court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
In addition to the above federal measures, Tennessee identified its consent decree with TVA as providing emissions reductions that have contributed to the improvement in air quality in the region. The consent decree covers all of TVA's coal-fired power plants, including two plants located in the Area (Bull Run Fossil Plant and Kingston Fossil Plant), and among other things, requires system-wide annual tonnage limitations for SO
Tennessee incorporated the consent decree requirements most responsible for attaining the standard in the Area (
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, Tennessee must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10 years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain such contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to assure prompt correction of any future 2006 24-hour PM
As discussed above, EPA has proposed to determine that the Area is
The emissions inventories are composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The attainment and future year emissions inventories were developed/projected as follows:
• Point source emissions were obtained from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and projected inventories were calculated using growth factors derived from the 2015 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2015) developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Growth factors were developed for point sources based on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and/or Source Classification Codes (SCC).
• Area source emissions were developed using EPA Nonpoint files located on EPA's CHIEF Emission Inventory Web site for the 2014 NEI and projected inventories by using 2014 emissions and growth factors obtained from Annual Energy Outlook 2015 energy forecasts for consumption and production, and TranSystems Category Specific Growth Factors.
• On-road mobile emissions were estimated using the latest version of EPA's MOVES2014a model. The input parameters for the model runs were developed, reviewed and agreed to by the transportation partners through interagency consultation.
• Non-road mobile emissions were obtained from EPA's Nonroad files located on EPA's EIS Gateway for the 2011 NEI and using MOVES2014a. Future nonroad mobile emissions were projected using 2011 emissions and national growth factors. Growth factors were multiplied by the 2014 emission values to calculate emissions for future years.
The 2014 SO
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the Area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of ten years following redesignation.” Calcagni Memorandum, p. 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, the purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail below, Tennessee's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the Area's overall emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2028. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that the Area will continue to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM
The maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area includes a maintenance demonstration that:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the Annual PM
(ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections for 2028.
(iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after EPA review and potential approval of the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NO
(iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2 through 6 below, the estimated and projected emissions inventories, in tons per day (tpd), for the Knoxville Area, for PM
In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Knoxville Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. As reflected above in Tables 2 through 5, future emissions of PM
As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the Area met the NAAQS. Tennessee selected 2014 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Knoxville Area. Tennessee calculated a safety margin in its submittal for the year 2028 and allocated the entire portion of the 2028 PM
There are currently seven monitors measuring PM
Tennessee, through TDEC, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the Knoxville Area 2006 24-hour PM
TDEC will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of triennial emission inventories for the Knoxville Area as required in the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). Emissions information will be compared to the 2014 attainment year to assure continued compliance with the 2006 24-hour PM
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by Tennessee. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan included in the submittal contains a commitment to implement measures that exist in the current SIP for PM
• Additional RACT for point sources of PM
• Additional RACM for area sources of PM
• Additional RACT for major point sources of NO
• Additional RACT for minor point sources of NO
• Additional RACM for area sources of NO
• Additional RACT for major point sources of SO
• Additional RACT for minor point sources of SO
• Additional RACM for area sources of SO
• Other control measures, not included in the above list, if new control programs are deemed more advantageous for the Area.
A secondary trigger is activated when one of the following conditions occurs that may forewarn of a potential exceedance of the 24-hour PM
• A 98th-percentile PM
• A 98th-percentile PM
• Total emissions of PM
EPA preliminarily concludes that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment emission inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Tennessee for Knoxville Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle
After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Knoxville Area, Tennessee has elected to develop MVEBs for NO
The State developed a worst case scenario to estimate the potential emissions increases due to changes in the models and planning assumptions mentioned earlier. For the worst case scenario, an analysis year of 2045 was selected. In addition, projected VMT was increased by 10 percent, the age of the vehicle fleet was increased by approximately two years, and the vehicle source type population was increased by 10 percent above the projected vehicle source type population for 2045. This analysis yielded emissions of PM
Since there is no apparent PM
As mentioned in Section V, the three-year design value for years 2013-2015 is 20 µg/m
Therefore, based on the Tennessee's speciation data assessment which concludes that there is a decrease in sulfate and nitrate concentrations even with a projected 2 percent increase in direct PM
There is no 2028 safety margin remaining for PM
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM
EPA is proposing to: (1) Approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) approve Tennessee's plan for maintaining the 2006 24-hour PM
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 2006 24-hour PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January, 21, 2011);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs of tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the Muncie, Indiana nonattainment area to attainment for the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for lead. EPA is proposing to approve this request and two additional related actions as revisions to the Indiana state implementation plan (SIP). These are the state's plan for maintaining the 2008 lead NAAQS through 2030 for the area and the 2013 attainment year emissions inventory for the area. EPA is proposing to approve these actions in accordance with the Clean Air Act and EPA's implementation regulations regarding the 2008 lead NAAQS.
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0137 at
Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
In the Final Rules section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On December 20, 2016, Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), submitted a request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to redesignate the Knoxville-Sevierville-La Follette, TN fine particulate matter (PM
Comments must be received on or before June 29, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0085 at
Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, in the 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. Sean Lakeman may be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043, or via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to take the following separate but related actions: (1) To approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) to
EPA's 1997 Annual PM
On June 2, 2014, EPA published a rule entitled “Identification of Nonattainment Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particle (PM
Based on its moderate nonattainment area classification, Tennessee was required to submit a SIP revision addressing RACM pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) for the Area. Although EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) and section 189(a)(1)(C) RACM must be approved into a SIP prior to redesignation of an area to attainment once that area is attaining the NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporate it into its SIP pursuant to a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Sixth Circuit) in
EPA is proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 1997 Annual PM
EPA also proposes to determine that the Knoxville Area has met the requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is proposing to approve a request to change the legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County within the Knoxville Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
In summary, this proposed rulemaking is in response to Tennessee's December 20, 2016, redesignation request and associated SIP submission that address the specific issues summarized above and the necessary elements for redesignation described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for the redesignation of the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM
On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA designated the Knoxville Area as nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM
On July 29, 2016, EPA issued a rule entitled, “Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (PM
In the PM
EPA is proposing to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for redesignation provided the following criteria are met: (1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
On April 16, 1992, EPA provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498), and the Agency supplemented this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the “Calcagni Memorandum”);
2. “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,” Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992; and
3. “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “Nichols Memorandum”).
On December 20, 2016, Tennessee requested that EPA redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
As stated above, in accordance with the CAA, EPA proposes to: (1) To approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) to determine that the Area is attaining the 1997 Annual PM
As noted above, there are a number of planning requirements in the CAA that are designed to help areas achieve attainment or demonstrate progress toward attainment. Where those areas are already attaining the NAAQS in question, EPA has long interpreted these requirements as not applicable for purposes of evaluating whether an area has a fully approved SIP pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
EPA is bound by the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Subpart 1 requires that each attainment plan “provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emission from the existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology), and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”
EPA reads CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C), and EPA's implementing regulations, together to require that attainment plans for moderate nonattainment areas must provide for the implementation of RACM for existing sources of PM
In this action, EPA proposes to approve Tennessee's December 20, 2016 RACM submission. In that submission, Tennessee did not identify any
The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Area in the following paragraphs of this section.
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). For PM
EPA has evaluated the complete, quality-assured data for the Area from 2013-2015, and as shown in Table 1 below, the monitors in the Knoxville Area all have annual arithmetic mean PM
As shown in Table 1, above, the Knoxville Area has a 2013-2015 design value of 9.9 μg/m
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for the Knoxville Area under section 110 of the CAA (general SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has met all applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) if EPA takes final action to incorporate Tennessee's RACM determination into the SIP pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to prevent sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements, where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110 elements that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110 and part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with EPA's existing policy on applicability (
EPA has reviewed Tennessee's SIP and has preliminarily concluded that it meets the general SIP requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA to the extent they are applicable for purposes of redesignation. EPA has previously approved provisions of Tennessee's SIP addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) requirements including provisions addressing the 1997 Annual PM
EPA's understanding of section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy. Under the Clean Data Policy, EPA promulgates a determination of attainment, published in the
EPA's long-standing interpretation regarding the applicability of the section 172(c) attainment planning requirements for an area that is attaining a NAAQS applies in this proposed redesignation of the Area as well, with the exception of the applicability of the requirement to implement RACM under section 172(c)(1). As discussed above, the Sixth Circuit ruled in
Section 172(c)(1) requires the plans for all nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of RACM as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the primary NAAQS. Under this requirement, a state must consider all available control measures, including reductions that are available from adopting reasonably available control technology on existing sources, for a nonattainment area and adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available in the area as components of the area's attainment demonstration. As discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's RACM determination and incorporate it into the SIP.
As noted above, the remaining section 172(c) attainment planning requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating the State's redesignation request. Specifically, the RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that must be made toward attainment, the requirement to submit section
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. On August 21, 2012 (77 FR 50378), EPA approved Tennessee's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for the Knoxville Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NNSR program be approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates maintenance of the NAAQS without NNSR. A more detailed rationale for this view is described in the Nichols Memorandum.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that the Tennessee SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes of redesignation.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP requirements
With respect to the specific attainment planning requirements under Subpart 4,
The permit requirements of Subpart 4, contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), refer to and apply the Subpart 1 permit provisions requirements of sections 172 and 173 to PM
Therefore, because the requirement of section 189(e) is primarily actionable in the context of addressing precursors in an attainment plan and in NNSR permitting, a precursor exemption analysis under section 189(e) and EPA's implementing regulations is not an applicable requirement that needs to be fully approved in the context of a redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). As discussed above, for areas that are attaining the standard, EPA does not interpret attainment planning requirements of Subparts 1 and 4 to be applicable requirements for the purposes of redesignating an area to attainment nor does it interpret NNSR to be an applicable requirement if the area can maintain the NAAQS with a PSD program after redesignation. However, to the extent that Tennessee is required to conduct a precursor exemption analysis in order to satisfy 189(e) in the context of its RACM determination for the Knoxville Area, which is required pursuant to the Sixth Circuit's decision in
For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee has satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of the Knoxville Area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
EPA has fully approved the applicable Tennessee SIP for the Knoxville Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for all requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation with the exception of the RACM requirements. In today's proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve the RACM determination for the Area and incorporate it into the Kentucky SIP. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a redesignation request (
As indicated above, EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to an area's nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation. If EPA finalizes approval of the RACM determination, EPA has approved all part D requirements applicable under the 1997 Annual PM
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal air pollution control regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). EPA has preliminarily determined that Tennessee has demonstrated that the observed air quality improvement in the Knoxville Area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from federal measures and a 2011 consent decree between Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Federal measures enacted in recent years have resulted in permanent emission reductions in particulate matter and its precursors. The federal measures that have been implemented include:
In 2008, the D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR,
Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the Court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR.
In addition to the above federal measures, Tennessee identified its consent decree with TVA as providing emissions reductions that have contributed to the improvement in air quality in the region. The consent decree covers all of TVA's coal-fired power plants, including two plants located in the Area (Bull Run Fossil Plant and Kingston Fossil Plant), and among other things, requires system-wide annual tonnage limitations for SO
Tennessee incorporated the consent decree requirements most responsible for attaining the standard in the Area (
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv)). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the Knoxville Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Because the 1997 primary Annual PM
As discussed above, EPA is proposing to determine that the Knoxville Area is attaining the 1997 PM
The emissions inventories are composed of four major types of sources: Point, area, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile. The attainment and future year emissions inventories were developed/projected as follows:
• Point source emissions were obtained from the 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and projected inventories were calculated using growth factors derived from the 2015 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO2015) developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Growth factors were developed for point sources based on North American Industry Classification System codes and/or Source Classification Codes.
• Area source emissions were developed using EPA Nonpoint files located on EPA's CHIEF Emission Inventory Web site for the 2014 NEI and projected inventories by using 2014 emissions and growth factors obtained from Annual Energy Outlook 2015 energy forecasts for consumption and production, and TranSystems Category Specific Growth Factors.
• On-road mobile emissions were estimated using the latest version of EPA's MOVES2014a model. The input parameters for the model runs were developed, reviewed and agreed to by the transportation partners through interagency consultation.
• Non-road mobile emissions were obtained from EPA's Nonroad files located on EPA's EIS Gateway for the 2011 NEI and using MOVES2014a. Future nonroad mobile emissions were projected using 2011 emissions and national growth factors. Growth factors were multiplied by the 2014 emission values to calculate emissions for future years.
The 2014 SO
Section 175A requires a state seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the Area “for at least 10 years after the redesignation.” EPA has interpreted this as a showing of maintenance “for a period of ten years following redesignation.” Calcagni Memorandum, p. 9. Where the emissions inventory method of showing maintenance is used, the purpose is to show that emissions during the maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year inventory. Calcagni Memorandum, pp. 9-10.
As discussed in detail below, Tennessee's maintenance plan submission expressly documents that the Area's overall emissions inventories will remain below the attainment year inventories through 2028. In addition, for the reasons set forth below, EPA believes that the Area will continue to maintain the 1997 Annual PM
The maintenance plan for the Knoxville Area includes a maintenance demonstration that:
(i) Shows compliance with and maintenance of the Annual PM
(ii) Uses 2014 as the attainment year and includes future emission inventory projections for 2028.
(iii) Identifies an “out year” at least 10 years after EPA review and potential approval of the maintenance plan. Per 40 CFR part 93, NO
(iv) Provides, as shown in Tables 2 through 6 below, the estimated and projected emissions inventories, in tpy, for the Knoxville Area, for PM
In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to nonattainment, such as the Knoxville Area, if the future projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the ambient air quality standard should not be exceeded in the future. As reflected above in Tables 2 through 5, future emissions of PM
As discussed in section VI of this proposed rulemaking, a safety margin is the difference between the attainment level of emissions (from all sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the maintenance plan. The attainment level of emissions is the level of emissions during one of the years in which the Area met the NAAQS. Tennessee selected 2014 as the attainment emissions inventory year for the Knoxville Area. Tennessee calculated a safety margin in its submittal for the year 2028 and allocated the entire portion of the 2028 PM
There are currently seven monitors measuring PM
Tennessee, through TDEC, has the legal authority to enforce and implement the requirements of the Knoxville Area 1997 Annual PM
TDEC will track the progress of the maintenance plan by performing future reviews of triennial emission inventories for the Knoxville Area as required in the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). Emissions information will be compared to the 2014 attainment year to assure continued compliance with the annual PM
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that a state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a time limit for action by Tennessee. A state should also identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan included in the submittal contains a commitment to implement measures that exist in the current SIP for PM
• Additional RACT for point sources of PM
• Additional RACM for area sources of PM
• Additional RACT for major point sources of NO
• Additional RACT for minor point sources of NO
• Additional RACM for area sources of NO
• Additional RACT for major point sources of SO
• Additional RACT for minor point sources of SO
• Additional RACM for area sources of SO
• Other control measures, not included in the above list, if new control programs are deemed more advantageous for the Area.
A secondary trigger is activated when one of the following conditions occurs that may forewarn of a potential exceedance of the Annual PM
• An annual mean PM
• An annual mean PM
• Total emissions of PM
EPA preliminarily concludes that the maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: attainment emission inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to find that the maintenance plan SIP revision submitted by Tennessee for Knoxville Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and is approvable.
Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans, programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must “conform” to (
Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas. These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment demonstration) and maintenance plans create MVEBs for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.
After interagency consultation with the transportation partners for the Knoxville Area, Tennessee has elected to develop MVEBs for NO
The State developed the worst case scenario to estimate the potential emissions increases due to changes in the models and planning assumptions mentioned earlier. For the worst case scenario, an analysis year of 2045 was selected. In addition, projected VMT was increased by 10 percent, the age of the vehicle fleet was increased by approximately two years, and the vehicle source type population was increased by 10 percent above the projected vehicle source type population for 2045. This analysis yielded emissions of PM
Since there is no apparent PM
As mentioned in Section V, the three-year design value for years 2013-2015 is 10.0 µg/m
The interagency consultation group approved a 10.39 tpy safety margin for
There is no safety margin remaining for PM
EPA's proposed actions establish the basis upon which EPA may take final action on the issues being proposed for approval. Approval of Tennessee's redesignation request would change the legal designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox, and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 1997 Annual PM
EPA is proposing to: (1) Approve Tennessee's RACM determination for the Knoxville Area pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C) and incorporate it into the SIP; (2) determine that the Area is attaining the 1997 Annual PM
If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change the official designation of Anderson, Blount, Knox and Loudon Counties and a portion of Roane County for the 1997 Annual PM
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January, 21, 2011);
• do not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• are certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• do not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• are not economically significant regulatory actions based on health or
• are not significant regulatory actions subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• will not have disproportionate human health or environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs of tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” GSA is seeking input on federal management and federal property management regulations that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. See the
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MA-2017-03, Evaluation of Existing Federal Management and Federal Property Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
GSA requests that comments be as specific as possible, include any supporting data, detailed justification for your proposal, or other information such as cost information, provide a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or
Mr. Bob Holcombe, Director, Personal Property, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-501-3828 or via email at
On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The E.O. further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. Through this notice, GSA is soliciting such input from the public to inform its Task Force's evaluation of existing federal management and federal property management regulations. Specifically, GSA is seeking input on regulations within 41 CFR Chapter 102 (Federal Management Regulation (FMR)) and 41 CFR Chapter 101 (Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR)) that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.
This Notice is requesting comment on topics contained in the following Subchapters of 41 CFR part 102:
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” GSA is seeking input on the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. See the
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MA-2017-02, Evaluation of Existing Federal Travel Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
If you are commenting via the google form, please note that each regulation or part that you are identifying for repeal, replacement or modification should be entered into the form
•
Mr. Craig Flynn, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-384-5977, or via email at
On February 24, 2017, the President signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a Federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The E.O. further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. 13777 calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. Through this notice, GSA is soliciting such input from the public, including individual Federal employees who travel or are relocated in the best interest of the Government, to inform its Task Force's evaluation of the FTR. Specifically, 41 CFR Subtitle F (Federal Travel Regulation System) Chapter 300 (General), Chapter 301 (Temporary Duty Travel Allowances), Chapter 302 (Relocation Allowances), Chapter 303 (Payment of Expenses Connected With the Death of Certain Employees), and Chapter 304 (Payment of Travel Expenses From a Non-Federal Source) that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification. The FTR may be found at
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” GSA is seeking input on lease acquisition regulations, policies, and guidance issued by GSA across all of its leasing programs that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MV-2017-02, Evaluation of Existing Leasing Acquisition Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Francine Serafin, 202-705-8659, or via email at
On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens” on the American people. Section 3(a) of the E.O. directs federal agencies to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (Task Force). One of the duties of the Task Force is to evaluate existing regulations and “make recommendations to the agency head regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.” The E.O. further asks that each Task Force “attempt to identify regulations that:
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriates Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. Through this notice, GSA is soliciting such input from the public to inform its Task Force's evaluation. This notice is specifically requesting input on existing lease acquisition regulations, policies, and guidance issued by GSA (
GSA requests that comments be as specific as possible, include any supporting data or other information such as cost information, provide a
GSA will also be conducting targeted outreach on this same topic. GSA intends to consider all GSA regulations for repeal, replacement, or modification under the guiding principles of EO 13777.
General Services Administration (GSA).
Request for comments.
In accordance with Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” GSA is seeking input on acquisition regulations, policies, standards, business practices and guidance issued by GSA across all of its acquisition, disposal, and sales programs, that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Submit comments identified by “Notice-MV-2017-01, Evaluation of Existing Acquisition Regulations” by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Ms. Francine Serafin, Office of Government-wide Policy, 202-705-8659, or via email at
On February 24, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda,” which established a federal policy “to alleviate unnecessary
(i) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(ii) are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(iii) impose costs that exceed benefits;
(iv) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(v) are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriates Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
(vi) derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.”
Section 3(e) of the E.O. calls on the Task Force to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, non-governmental organizations, and trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above. Through this notice, GSA is soliciting such input from the public to inform its Task Force's evaluation. This notice is specifically requesting input on existing acquisition regulations, policies, and guidance issued by GSA (
GSA has recently received public comments on Commercial Software Licenses and Order Level Materials (Other Direct Costs). These rules are currently in the final rulemaking stages and additional comments are not requested.
GSA is particularly interested in comments on areas not recently addressed, such as evergreen, price adjustments, catalogs, requirements relating to utilities, construction, and facilities. In addition, the recent Transactional Data Reporting rule is a final rule and is in a pilot stage. As such, comments on it, along with the Price Reduction Clause and the Commercial Sales Practice format, are also encouraged.
GSA requests that comments be as specific as possible, include any supporting data or other information such as cost information, provide a
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period; public hearings.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period for our August 10, 2016, proposed rule to list the Texas hornshell (
(1) A public informational session from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 13, 2017, in Laredo, Texas (see
(2) A public informational session from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on June 15, 2017, in Carlsbad, New Mexico (see
People needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact the Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, at 281-286-8282, as soon as possible (see
(1)
(2)
We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
1. A public informational session from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at Student Center Ballroom #203, Texas A&M International University, 5201 University Blvd., Laredo, Texas 78041, on June 13, 2017.
2. A public informational session from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Pecos River Village Conference Center, 711 Muscatel Ave., Carlsbad, NM 88220, on June 15, 2017.
Chuck Ardizzone, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 El Camino Real #211, Houston, TX 77058; by telephone 281-286-8282; or by facsimile 281-488-5882. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The Texas hornshell's biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding and spawning;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species, particularly in Mexico.
(5) Information related to climate change within the range of the Texas hornshell and how it may affect the species' habitat.
(6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Texas hornshell;
(b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the Texas hornshell, should be included in a critical habitat designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.
If you previously submitted comments or information on the August 10, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 52796), please do not resubmit them. We have incorporated them into the public record, and we will fully consider them in our final determination. Our final determination concerning the proposed rulemaking will take into consideration all written comments and any information we receive.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
On August 10, 2016, we published a proposed rule (81 FR 52796) to list the Texas hornshell as an endangered species under the Act. The publication of this proposed rule was pursuant to a court-approved settlement agreement (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). That proposal had a 60-day comment period, ending October 11, 2016. The Act and the relevant settlement agreement require that we publish a final listing determination for the Texas hornshell on or before August 10, 2017. For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the Texas hornshell, please refer to the August 10, 2016, proposed listing rule (81 FR 52796).
During the comment period for the proposed listing rule, we received several requests for public hearings. We are reopening the comment period on our proposal to list the Texas hornshell as an endangered species for 30 days (see DATES) to hold those public hearings and allow the public an opportunity to provide comments on our proposal.
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule.
NMFS proposes to implement annual management measures and harvest specifications to establish the allowable catch levels (
Comments must be received by June 14, 2017.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0045, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Copies of the report “Assessment of Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S.A. Management in 2017-2018” may be obtained from the West Coast Region (see
Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034,
During public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific sardine is presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with the calculated overfishing limit (OFL), available biological catch (ABC), and HG, along with recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel, and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS. NMFS manages the Pacific sardine fishery in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the FMP. Annual specifications published in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
As described above, the Pacific sardine HG control rule, the primary mechanism for setting the annual directed commercial fishery quota, includes a CUTOFF parameter, which has been set as a biomass level of 150,000 mt. This amount is subtracted from the annual biomass estimate before calculating the applicable HG for the fishing year. Since this year's biomass estimate is below that value, the formula results in an HG of zero, and no Pacific sardine are available for the primary commercial directed fishery during the 2017-2018 fishing season.
At the April 2017 Council meeting, the Council's SSC approved, and the Council adopted, the “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S. Management in 2017-2018,” which was completed by NMFS Southwest
• An incidental per landing by weight allowance of 40 percent Pacific sardine in non-treaty CPS fisheries until a total of 2,000 mt of Pacific sardine are landed.
• When 2,000 mt are landed, the incidental per landing allowance would be reduced to 20 percent until a total of 5,000 mt of Pacific sardine have been landed.
• When 5,000 mt have been landed, the incidental per landing allowance would be reduced to 10 percent for the remainder of the 2017-2018 fishing year.
Because Pacific sardine is known to comingle with other CPS stocks, these incidental allowances are proposed to allow for the continued prosecution of these other important CPS fisheries and reduce the potential discard of sardine. Additionally, a 2 mt incidental per landing allowance in non-CPS fisheries is proposed.
The NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator would publish a notice in the
In each of the previous 5 fishing years, the Quinault Indian Nation requested, and NMFS approved, a set-aside for the exclusive right to harvest Pacific sardine in the Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Area off the coast of Washington State, pursuant to the 1856 Treaty of Olympia (Treaty with the Quinault). For the 2017-2018 fishing season, the Quinault Indian Nation has requested that NMFS provide a set-aside of 800 mt (the same amount that was requested and approved for the 2016-2017 season) and NMFS is considering the request.
Detailed information on the fishery and the stock assessment are found in the report “Assessment of the Pacific Sardine Resource in 2017 for U.S. Management in 2017-2018” (see
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This action is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to conserve the Pacific sardine stock by preventing overfishing, so that directed fishing may occur in future years. This will be accomplished by implementing the 2017-2018 annual specifications for Pacific sardine in the U.S. EEZ off the Pacific coast. The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that, if the fishery was open, would be expected to harvest Pacific sardine as part of the West Coast CPS small purse seine fleet. In 2014, the last year that a directed fishery for Pacific sardine was allowed, there were approximately 81 vessels permitted to operate in the directed sardine fishery component of the CPS fishery off the U.S. West Coast; 58 vessels in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California (south of 39° N. lat.), and a combined 23 vessels in Oregon and Washington's state Pacific sardine fisheries. The average annual per vessel revenue in 2014 for those vessels was well below the threshold level of $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to annually set an OFL, ABC, ACL, and HG or ACT for the Pacific sardine fishery based on the specified harvest control rules in the FMP applied to the current stock biomass estimate for that year. The derived annual HG is the level typically used to manage the principal commercial sardine fishery and is the harvest level typically used by NMFS for profitability analysis each year. As stated above, the CPS FMP dictates that when the estimated biomass drops below a certain level (150,000 mt) there is no HG. Therefore, for the purposes of profitability analysis, this action is essentially proposing an HG of zero for the 2017-2018 Pacific sardine fishing season (July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018). The estimated biomass used for management during the preceding fishing year (2016-2017) was also below 150,000 mt; therefore, NMFS did not implement a HG, thereby disallowing a commercial directed Pacific sardine fishery. Since there is again no directed fishing for the 2017-2018 fishing year, this proposed rule will not change the potential profitability as compared to the previous fishing year.
The revenue derived from harvesting Pacific sardine is typically only one source of fishing revenue for many of the vessels that harvest Pacific sardine; as a result, the economic impact to the fleet from the proposed action cannot be viewed in isolation. From year to year, depending on market conditions and availability of fish, most CPS/sardine vessels supplement their income by harvesting other species. Many vessels in California also harvest anchovy, mackerel, and in particular, squid, making Pacific sardine only one component of a multi-species CPS fishery. Additionally, some sardine vessels that operate off of Oregon and Washington also fish for salmon in Alaska or squid in California during times of the year when sardine are not available. The purpose of the proposed incidental allowances under this action
CPS vessels typically rely on multiple species for profitability because abundance of Pacific sardine, like the other CPS stocks, is highly associated with ocean conditions and seasonality, and therefore are harvested at various times and areas throughout the year. Because each species responds to ocean conditions in its own way, not all CPS stocks are likely to be abundant at the same time; therefore, as abundance levels and markets fluctuate, it has necessitated that the CPS fishery as a whole rely on a group of species for its annual revenues.
Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paper Reduction Act.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App.), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to assist the USDA in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on any other aspects of the implementation of Organic Foods Production Act.
The Board will receive public comments via a webinar on October 24, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET). If the number of commenters registered for the webinar exceeds the time allotted, a second webinar will be held on October 26 from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. ET. An in-person meeting will be held October 31-November 2, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m. ET. Oral comments will be heard on Tuesday, October 31, 2017. The deadline to submit written comments and/or sign up for oral comment at either the webinar or face-to-face meeting is 11:59 p.m. ET, October 11, 2017.
The webinar(s) are virtual and will be accessed via the internet and/or phone. Access information will be available on the AMS Web site prior to the webinar. The in-person meeting will take place at the Omni Jacksonville Hotel, 245 Water Street, Jacksonville, FL, 32202, United States. Detailed information pertaining to the webinar and in-person meeting can be found at
Ms. Michelle Arsenault, Advisory Committee Specialist, National Organic Standards Board, USDA-AMS-NOP, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Room 2642-S, Mail Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0268; Phone: (202) 720-3252; Email:
The NOSB makes recommendations to the Department of Agriculture about whether substances should be allowed or prohibited in organic production and/or handling, assists in the development of standards for organic production, and advises the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522). The public meeting allows the NOSB to discuss and vote on proposed recommendations to the USDA, receive updates from the USDA National Organic Program (NOP) on issues pertaining to organic agriculture, and receive comments from the organic community. The meeting is open to the public. All meeting documents, including the meeting agenda, NOSB proposals and discussion documents, instructions for submitting and viewing public comments, and instructions for requesting time for oral comments will be available on the AMS Web site at
Comments should address specific topics noted on the meeting agenda. Written comments: Written public comments will be accepted on or before 11:59 p.m. ET October 11, 2017 via
Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this NEW information collection request. This study will conduct a census of all 53 State Agencies that administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to catalog and describe how States are currently using or planning to use computer matching strategies to reduce recipient fraud, payment errors, and administrative burden for both applicants and eligibility workers.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Comments are invited on (1) 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; (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 use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be sent to Danielle Deemer, Office of Policy Support, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 10.1008, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Danielle Deemer at 703-305-2952 or via email to
All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 10.1008, Alexandria, VA 22302.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection forms should be directed to Danielle Deemer at 703-305-2952.
The primary purpose of this study is to assess the computer matching strategies used by State Agencies and to prepare an updated nationwide data-matching inventory to inform effective practices for SNAP.
This project has four research objectives:
1. To inventory all data matches that State SNAP offices currently use and plan to use in the future.
2. To identify and describe all data systems used for matching by each SNAP State agency. Such systems include automated systems, web-based systems, and/or software that integrate data from multiple sources.
3. To identify and describe the purposes for which States pursue each data match.
4. To calculate the annual and per-usage costs incurred in carrying out data matches, in total and, when possible, for each individual match.
To address the study objectives, three types of data will be collected and analyzed: (1) Extant documentation on State data-matching procedures; (2) extant documentation on administrative costs of data matching; and (3) survey data on all 53 State agencies collected via the National Survey of State SNAP Data-Matching Methods. The study will result in both a report for public release and a database that catalogs data matches and can be updated on an ongoing basis.
Of the 53 State agencies, 43 administer SNAP at the State level and 10 administer SNAP at the county level. Therefore, the survey will also collect data at the county level from the 10 States that have county-administered SNAP to account for variations in processes and procedures at the county level. Due to the many and varied systems States use to match data for initial and continuing program eligibility, participation, and integrity checks, we anticipate that any particular State with county-administered SNAP could have multiple county/local respondents who can best answer system, process, technical, and cost-related questions. We estimate that about half of the 10 States with county-administered SNAP will ask county administrators to complete the sections of the survey about county-level processes and procedures.
There is a slight difference in the time required for State and county staff to complete the survey due to several additional items on the State survey. Time per response for State SNAP staff completing the state portion of the survey only varies from approximately 20 minutes (0.334), approximately 30 minutes (0.50) and approximately 45 minutes (0.75). Time per response for counties completing the county portion of the survey ranges from approximately 15 minutes (0.25), to approximately 24 minutes (0.40), to approximately 42 minutes (0.70). The length of time per response for state SNAP staff completing the survey for states and counties ranges from approximately 30 minutes (0.50), to approximately 60 minutes (1.00), to approximately 72 minutes (1.20).
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection of information for the Evaluation of Alternatives to Improve Elderly Access. This is a NEW information collection. This study will provide FNS with a better understanding of the barriers to serving elderly populations in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the extent to which available policy options improve program access, whether certain program models or combinations are more effective than others, and what tradeoffs exist between program simplification/access goals and ensuring benefit adequacy.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Comments may be sent to Kameron Burt, Social Science Policy Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Kameron Burt at 703-305-2576 or via email to
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
To request more information on the proposed project, or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans contact Kameron Burt, Social Science Policy Analyst, Office of Policy Support, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302; Fax: 703-305-2576; Email:
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 of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
(1) Exploratory Study: To ground the study plan and subsequent components of the study, the project began with an initial exploratory research phase to determine what is known about elder SNAP participation levels and caseload dynamics over time, factors influencing elder participation in SNAP, and the scope, range, and effects of State interventions for elders to date. The exploratory study drew primarily on existing data, including SNAP Quality Control (QC) data from Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015 and an index of State policy options, and a literature review, supplemented by discussions with FNS Regional and National office staff and experts from advocacy groups.
(2) Study of State Interventions: The Study of State Interventions will document the design, implementation, and operation of interventions intended to increase access to SNAP among the elderly population in the selected States. This component will provide a comprehensive understanding of the interventions, helping us to interpret the effects or lack thereof observed in the Study of Intervention Effects, draw lessons on how aspects of the interventions may be improved, and assess whether the interventions, if implemented in other locations or contexts, might yield similar outcomes. The primary source of data for this study component will be the extensive information collected during three-day site visits to each of the ten selected States.
(3) Study of elder participant perspectives: The purpose of the study is to gather direct input from elders about their awareness of SNAP, perceptions of the program, and experiences applying for and receiving SNAP benefits. Key data collection activities for this component will include: Phone screenings with elderly individuals to confirm eligibility and schedule interviews (560 individuals will be screened to result in 280 scheduled interviews); semi-structured interviews with 200 elderly eligible individuals (out of the 280 scheduled interviews) grouped into three categories (SNAP participants, non-participating applicants, and non-participants). FNS plans to contact or recruit another 115 individuals 60+ to participate in the focus group. Out of the 115 contacted, 80 will go on to participate in the actual focus group. These focus groups will be used to validate and explore key themes that emerge in the interviews. Overall, the expectation is that out of the total 675 elderly individuals contacted, 395 will not respond or choose not to take part in the study.
(4) Study of State Intervention Effects: The objective of the Study of State Intervention Effects is to assess the relative association between State interventions and key program outcomes, including elderly SNAP application trends and caseloads, and rates of churning. The focus of this analysis will be on the interventions that are specifically targeted to elderly households (in addition to the Community Partner Interview Demonstration (CPID)). The study team identified the following interventions as being of particular interest to the study because they either aim at increasing the enrollment of elderly participants or hold particular promise in this regard: Elderly Simplified Application Project (ESAP); Standard Medical Deduction (SMD); CPID; Combined Application
The key data source for this study will be a longitudinal file for each State that will be built by requesting caseload data from each study State for a period of time beginning 12 months before the implementation of an intervention and continuing through 12 months after implementation.
Out of the 1,018 contacted, 660 are estimated to participate as respondents and 358 are estimated to not partake, who are considered our non-respondent group. The break out is as follows: The total estimated number of respondents includes: Out of 13 State SNAP Directors, 10 State SNAP Directors will participate; out of 70 State SNAP Administrative Staff, 70 State SNAP Administrative Staff will participate; out of 675 Individuals/Households, 360 Individuals Households (Elderly SNAP Recipients 60+ and Non-recipients, and Non-participating applicants) will participate; out of 50 Non-profit Organizations (Organizations serving elderly individuals) contacted, 40 will participate; out of 20 County Government SNAP Directors contacted, 20 will participate; out of 50 State and County Staff (Partner Agencies) contacted, 30 will participate; out of 100 County SNAP Staff contacted, 100 will participate; and out of 40 Non-profit Organizations (Community Based Organizations) contacted, 30 will.
The estimated number of responses per State Government SNAP Director is two: 10 State SNAP Directors will complete a Memorandum of Understanding with the research team; the same 10 State SNAP Directors will also take part in an interview lasting approximately 1 hour.
The estimated number of responses per State SNAP Administrative Staff is one: 20 respondents will prepare and provide caseload data files; 50 other respondents will take part in an interview.
The estimated number of responses per Individual Household (Elderly SNAP Recipients and Non-recipients) is one: 200 respondents will take part in an interview; 80 other respondents will take part in a focus group discussion (additionally, 395 other elderly individuals will be screened and/or have an interview or focus group scheduled but will not complete that activity).
The estimated number of responses per Non-profit Organization (Organizations serving elderly individuals) is one: 40 respondents will provide assistance with recruiting participants for interviews and focus groups.
The estimated number of responses per Non-profit Organizations (Community Based Organizations) is one: 30 respondents will participate in interviews as part of the study of State interventions.
The estimated number of responses per County Government SNAP Director is one: 20 respondents will take part in an interview.
The estimated number of responses per State and County Staff (Partner Agencies) is one: 30 respondents will take part in an interview.
The estimated number of responses per County SNAP Staff is one: 100 respondents will take part in an interview.
The estimated time of response varies from one to 20 hours depending on respondent group and data collection activity, as shown in the table below, with an average estimated time of 1.53 hours for all participants (the average estimated time is .10 hours for non-respondents). Twenty State SNAP Administrative Staff will spend an estimated 20 hours to prepare and provide caseload data files, and 10 State Government SNAP Directors will spend an estimated 10 hours to complete a Memorandum of Understanding with the research team. All other data collection activities produce a burden of 1.5 hours or less.
See Table 1 below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new information collection for the Study of School Food Authority (SFA) Procurement Practices. This study is intended to describe and assess the practices of SFAs related to procuring goods and services for school meal programs (
This collection includes a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative information utilizing a structured web-based survey, as well as in-depth interviews (IDIs) to be conducted by telephone. Data will be collected from a subsample of the SFA population participating in the second year of the Child Nutrition Program Operations Study-II (CN-OPS II) (OMB Number 0584-0607).
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
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 of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.
To request more information on the proposed project, contact Ashley Chaifetz, Ph.D., Social Science Research Analyst, Special Nutrition Evaluation Branch, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302; Fax: 703-305-2576; Email:
The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and Child Nutrition Act provide the legislative authority for the NSLP and the SBP. FNS administers the NSLP and the SBP at the Federal level, in addition to other meal programs at schools, including the SFSP, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and Special Milk Program for Children (SMP). At the State level, school meal programs are administered by State agencies (typically State Departments of Education or Agriculture). Approximately 20,000 SFAs, which can consist of a school, school district, or multiple districts, are responsible for administering and ensuring eligibility is met for the school meal programs, including procurement. School food procurement consists mainly of commercial food purchases, but USDA Foods also make up a portion of the items purchased.
For each meal served by the NSLP, the SFA receives entitlement dollars to purchase USDA Foods, which can include purchasing items directly from the USDA or diverting bulk ingredients for further processing. SFAs can also use their entitlement dollars to purchase fresh produce from the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable program (USDA DoD Fresh) or the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). Additionally, some SFAs contract with an FSMC to manage on-site operations, including procurement; others enter into group purchasing agreements or use procurement methods such as small and micro-purchases.
The objectives of the study include the following:
• Identify and describe the means through which self-operating SFAs develop and publish solicitations, evaluate and award contracts, and monitor procurement contracts for all school food purchases.
• Identify and describe the rationale, procedures, and recordkeeping practices used by SFAs with respect to their contracts with FSMCs.
• Identify and describe the forms of cooperative purchasing arrangements SFAs use to purchase food products and services.
• Assess the strengths and weaknesses of SFAs with respect to procurement-related expertise in developing solicitation and contract documents, evaluating bids/responses, negotiating terms and conditions, and assessing the availability of State agency-provided technical assistance and training resources.
The SFA Procurement Practices Study will assist FNS to better understand SFA procurement practices by identifying the ways SFAs make decisions about procuring goods and services and the outcomes of such decisions.
The activities to be undertaken subject to this notice include (1)
For the Web survey, all 700 potential respondents will receive a pre-survey notification letter, a Frequently Asked Questions document, and a pre-survey notification email. These materials will explain the study and survey, and encourage and remind the respondent to complete the survey. During the data collection period, a first reminder email will be sent to an estimated 560 potential respondents who, at that point in time, have yet to complete the web survey. Later in the data collection period, a second reminder email will be sent to an estimated 224 potential respondents who, at that point in time, have yet to complete the web survey. Upon completion of the web survey data collection period, the estimated 560 respondents will receive a post-survey response clarification communication; an estimated 280 of these respondents will receive a phone call and 280 will receive an email, depending on the extent of the clarifications that are needed. Thank you emails will be sent to the estimated 280 respondents who were sent a response clarification email. Respondents that received a response clarification phone call will be thanked for their participation in the survey at the end of the call.
For the in-depth interviews, 125 of the estimated 560 respondents to the web survey will receive a pre-interview notification letter, which includes the Frequently Asked Questions document that they received prior to the web survey. These materials will explain the purpose of the interview and why they were chosen for the interview, and will encourage them to participate. Next, each of the 125 potential interviewees will receive a pre-interview scheduling phone call. The purpose of the call will be to further encourage their participation and to schedule the interview. A reminder email will be sent to and a second pre-interview scheduling phone call will be attempted with an estimated 75 potential respondents who, at that point in time, have yet to schedule an interview. After the scheduling calls, the estimated 100 respondents who agree to and schedule an interview will be sent a participant confirmation email. At the completion of the interview, the respondents will be thanked for their participation; thank you emails will not be sent out after the interview.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Sierra County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sierraville, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held on Friday, June 16, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at the Sierraville Ranger Station, Conference Room, 317 South Lincoln (Highway 89), Sierraville, California.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-478-6205 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Welcome and oriententation of members,
2. Federal Advisory Committee Act overview,
3. Development of project ranking citeria and voting process,
4. Elect a RAC chairperson,
5. Project proponent presentations, and
6. Review and selection of project proposals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request in writing by June 12, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Michael Woodbridge, RAC Coordinator, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, California 95959; by email to
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on September 30, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Aberdeen Grain Inspection, Inc. (Aberdeen).
Applications and comments must be received by June 29, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area in the States of North Dakota and South Dakota is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by U.S. Route 12 east to State Route 22; State Route 22 north to the Burlington-Northern line; the Burlington-Northern line east to State Route 21; State Route 21 east to State Route 49; State Route 49 south to the North Dakota-South Dakota State
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in North Dakota and South Dakota is for the period beginning October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above or visit GIPSA's Web site at (
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Aberdeen official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice.
The designation of the official agency listed below will end on September 30, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Hastings Grain Inspection, Inc. (Hastings).
Applications and comments must be received by June 29, 2017.
Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or
Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.
Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the USGSA, the following geographic area in the State of Nebraska is assigned to this official agency.
Bounded on the north by the northern Nebraska State line from the western Sioux County line east to the eastern Knox County line; bounded on the east by the eastern and southern Knox County lines; the eastern Antelope County line; the northern Madison County line east to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to the southern Madison County line; the southern Madison County line; the eastern Boone, Nance, and Merrick County lines; the Platte River southwest; the eastern Hamilton County line; the northern and eastern Fillmore County lines; the southern Fillmore County line west to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 south to State Highway 8; State Highway 8 west to the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81; the County Road south to the southern Nebraska State line; bounded on the south by the southern Nebraska State line, from the County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81, west to the western Dundy County line; and bounded on the west by the western Dundy, Chase, Perkins, and Keith County lines; the southern and western Garden County lines; the southern Morrill County line west to U.S. Route 385; U.S. Route 385 north to the southern Box Butte County line; the southern and western Sioux County lines north to the northern Nebraska State line.
The following grain elevators are part of this geographic area assignment. In Kansas Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s area: Farmers Coop, Big Springs, Deuel County, Nebraska; and Big Springs Elevator, Big Springs, Deuel County, Nebraska. In Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s area: Huskers Cooperative Grain Company, Columbus, Platte County, Nebraska.
Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic area specified above under
We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Hastings official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at
We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.
7 U.S.C. 71-87k.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New Hampshire Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, June 16, 2017, in Room P435, University of New Hampshire, 88 Commercial Street, Manchester, NH. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct orientation for the newly appointed Committee and discuss current civil rights issues of importance in the state.
Friday, June 16, 2017, at 12:00 p.m. (EDT).
University of New Hampshire, Room P435, 88 Commercial St., Manchester, NH 03101.
Barbara J. Delaviez, Designated Federal Official (DFO),
If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at
Members of the public are invited to make statements during the open comment period of the meeting or submit written comments. The comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) Monday, June 19, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to consider and discuss potential topics for their FY17 civil rights project.
The meeting will be held on Monday, June 19, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. PDT.
Public call information: Dial: 877-852-6543 Conference ID: 2136543.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-852-6543, conference ID number: 2136543. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:30 p.m. (Pacific Time) Thursday, May 25, 2017, for the purpose of voting on the advisory memorandum issued to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to contribute to their 2017 statutory enforcement report.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, May 25, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. PDT.
Public call information: Dial: 888-515-2880, Conference ID: 3446454.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-515-2880, conference ID number: 3446454. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Alaska Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Alaska Time) Tuesday, June 13, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to receive orientation from Commission staff and discussion regarding the status of the Committee project on voting rights.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 13, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. AKDT.
Public call information: Dial: 877-874-1586 Conference ID: 1868231.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-874-1586, conference ID number: 1868231. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S.
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at
The Department of Commerce will submit a request for renewal of an existing collection of information entitled, “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The information collection activity for this fast-track process will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Department of Commerce's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Department and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The DOC received no comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On November 21, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results and rescission, in part, of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). This review covers one company, Shandong Rongxin Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Rongxin), for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2014, through November 30, 2015. The Department continues to find that Rongxin has not established its eligibility for a separate rate, and, thus, should be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity.
Effective May 30, 2017.
Mary Kolberg, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785.
The Department published its
The merchandise subject to the order includes certain cased pencils from the PRC. The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9609.1010. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The Department continues to find that Rongxin has not established its eligibility for a separate rate and is part of the PRC-wide entity. The rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity is 114.90 percent.
Upon issuing the final results of review, the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not established their eligibility for a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.213, and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On February 13, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for four companies. The Department previously rescinded this review with respect to two of the four companies. Based on timely withdrawal of requests for review, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to the remaining two companies, Beijing Sai Lin Ke Hardware Co. Ltd. (SLK) and LDR Industries Inc (LDR).
Effective May 30, 2017.
Paul Stolz, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4474.
On December 1, 2016, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC for the December 1, 2015, through November 30, 2016, period of review (POR).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Anvil timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of SLK and LDR within the 90-day deadline. No other party requested a review of these companies. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review with respect to these companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Further, as a result of the rescission with respect to SLK and LDR and the prior rescission with respect to Pannext and JMC, this review is now rescinded in its entirety.
Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of malleable cast iron pipe fittings from the PRC. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a conference call on Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.. The conference call is open to the
June 21, 2017, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, June 16, 2017, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
On June 21, 2017, the REEEAC will hold a conference call to potentially approve recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce informing of actions to improve the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the
A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, June 16, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the International Trade Administration may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are requested to submit a copy of their oral comments by email to Ms. Gunderson for distribution to the participants in advance of the meeting.
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW.; Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, June 16, 2017, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (REEEAC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, July 27, 2017 at the U.S. Department of Commerce Herbert C. Hoover Building in Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
July 27, 2017, from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance with Victoria Gunderson at the contact information below by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 21, 2017, in order to pre-register, including any requests to make comments during the meeting or for accommodations or auxiliary aids.
Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries (OEEI), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-7890; email:
On July 27, the REEEAC will hold the third in-person meeting of its new charter term and hold REEEAC sub-committee working sessions, discuss next steps for each sub-committee, consider recommendations for approval, and hear from officials from the Department of Commerce and other agencies on major issues impacting the competitiveness of the U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries.
The meeting will be open to the public and will be accessible to people with disabilities. All guests are required to register in advance by the deadline identified under the
A limited amount of time before the close of the meeting will be available for oral comments from members of the public attending the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for public comments will be limited to two to five minutes per person (depending on number of public participants). Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must contact Ms. Gunderson and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the comments, as well as the name and address of the proposed participant by 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 21, 2017. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be
Any member of the public may submit written comments concerning the REEEAC's affairs at any time before or after the meeting. Comments may be submitted to the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, c/o: Victoria Gunderson, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Mail Stop: 4053; Washington, DC 20230. To be considered during the meeting, written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, July 21, 2017, to ensure transmission to the REEEAC prior to the meeting. Comments received after that date will be distributed to the members but may not be considered at the meeting.
Copies of REEEAC meeting minutes will be available within 30 days following the meeting.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed topics of discussion for public meetings of the Advisory Committee on Supply Chain Competitiveness (Committee).
The meetings will be held on June 21, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and June 22, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The meetings on June 21 and 22 will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Research Library (Room 1894), Washington, DC 20230.
Richard Boll, Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services (OSCPBS), International Trade Administration. (Phone: (202) 482-1135 or Email:
The meetings will be open to the public and press on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. The public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Richard Boll, at (202) 482-1135 or
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before and after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of this meeting must send them to the Office of Supply Chain, Professional & Business Services, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 11014, Washington, DC 20230, or email to
For consideration during the meetings, and to ensure transmission to the Committee prior to the meetings, comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 12, 2017. Comments received after June 12, 2017, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of a Letter of Authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, and implementing regulations, notice is hereby given that a Letter of Authorization (LOA) has been issued to the U.S. Navy (Navy) to take marine mammals incidental to Navy training activities conducted in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) Temporary Maritime Activities Area (Study Area). These activities are considered military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA).
Effective from April 26, 2017 to April 26, 2022.
The LOA and supporting documents may be obtained online at:
Jolie Harrison or Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill marine mammals. We, NMFS, have been delegated the authority to issue such regulations and Authorizations.
The NDAA (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above 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).
An authorization for incidental takings 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 takings 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.”
Regulations governing the taking of individuals of 19 species of marine mammals, representing 27 stocks, by Level B harassment and one species of marine mammal (Dall's porpoise) by Level A harassment incidental to Navy training activities in the GOA Study Area are in effect from April 26, 2017 through April 26, 2022 (82 FR 19530, April 27, 2017) and are codified at 50 CFR part 218, subpart P. The regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Pursuant to those regulations, NMFS issued a five-year LOA for the incidental take of marine mammals during training activities in the GOA Study Area on April 26, 2017. For detailed information on this action, please refer to the April 27, 2017
On July 28, 2014, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting regulations and a subsequent LOA for the take of 19 species of marine mammals, representing 27 stocks, incidental to Navy training activities to be conducted in the GOA Study Area over 5 years. On October 14, 2014, the Navy submitted a revised application to reflect minor changes in the number and types of training activities. To address minor inconsistencies with the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS/OEIS), the Navy submitted a final revision to the application on January 21, 2015. In November 2016, the Navy requested that the final rule and LOA be issued for the training activities addressed by Alternative 1 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS/OEIS). The Navy's application was based on the training activities addressed by Alternative 2 of the DSEIS/OEIS; therefore, our proposed rule (81 FR 9950; February 26, 2016) analyzed the level of activities as described by Alternative 2. Pursuant to the Navy's November 2016 request, the final rule (82 FR 19530; April 27, 2017) reflects the training activities addressed by Alternative 1 of the FSEIS/OEIS, which include a subset of the activities analyzed in the proposed rule. The change from Alternative 2 to Alternative 1 results in a significant reduction in proposed training activities (
The Study Area is a polygon roughly the shape of a 300 nm by 150 nm rectangle oriented northwest to southeast in the long direction, located south of Prince William Sound and east of Kodiak Island, Alaska. The activities conducted within the Study Area are classified as military readiness activities. The final rule (82 FR 19530, April 27, 2017) and GOA FSEIS/OEIS include a complete description of the Navy's specified training activities incidental to which NMFS is authorizing take of marine mammals. Sonar use and underwater detonations are the stressors most likely to result in impacts on marine mammals that could rise to the level of harassment.
We have issued an LOA to the Navy authorizing the take of marine mammals by harassment incidental to training activities in the GOA Study Area, as described above. The level and type of take authorized by the LOA is the same as the level and type of take analyzed in the final rule (82 FR 19530, April 27, 2017). There are no mortality takes of any species predicted or authorized for any training activities in the GOA Study Area. Take of marine mammals will be minimized through implementation of mitigation measures, including: pre-exercise visual or aerial monitoring during certain training activities; the use of lookouts to monitor for marine mammals and begin powerdown and shutdown of sonar when marine mammals are detected within ranges where the received sound level is likely to result in threshold shift or injury; use of exclusion zones that avoid exposing marine mammals to levels of explosives likely to result in injury or death of marine mammals; avoidance of marine mammals by vessels; limitation of activities in a North Pacific Right Whale “Cautionary Area”; and implementation of a stranding response plan, among others. The Navy is also required to comply with monitoring and reporting measures under 50 CFR 218.155. Additionally, the rule and LOA include an adaptive management component that allows for timely modification of mitigation or monitoring measures based on new information, when appropriate. For full details on the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, please refer to the final rule (82 FR 19530; April 27, 2017).
Issuance of the LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule, that the total taking of marine mammals incidental to the Navy's training activities in the GOA Study Area will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
The LOA will remain valid through April 26, 2022, provided that the Navy
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that the NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the National Park Service (NPS) to incidentally harass, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals during gull monitoring and research activities in Glacier Bay National Park (Glacier Bay NP) from May through September, 2017.
This Authorization is effective from May 1, 2017 through September 30, 2017.
Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified area, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, provided that certain findings are made and the necessary prescriptions are established.
The incidental taking of small numbers of marine mammals shall be allowed if NMFS (through authority delegated by the Secretary) finds that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will (i) have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and (ii) not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, the permissible methods of taking, as well as the other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat (
Where there is the potential for serious injury or death, the allowance of incidental taking requires promulgation of regulations under section 101(a)(5)(A). Subsequently, a Letter (or Letters) of Authorization may be issued as governed by the prescriptions established in such regulations, provided that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the specific regulations. Under section 101(a)(5)(D), NMFS may authorize incidental taking by harassment only (
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.”
NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity:
(1) That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) directly displacing subsistence users; or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and
(2) That cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On November 22, 2016, NMFS received an application from Glacier Bay NP requesting taking by harassment of marine mammals, incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls (
For the 2017 research season, Glacier Bay NP plans to conduct ground-based and vessel-based surveys to collect data on the number and distribution of nesting gulls within six study sites in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Marine mammals have only been observed at four of the six study sites. The planned activities would occur over the course of five months, from May through September 2017.
The following aspects of the planned gull research activities have the potential to take marine mammals: Noise generated by motorboat approaches and departures; noise generated by researchers while conducting ground surveys; and human presence (visual disturbance) during the monitoring and research activities. Harbor seals hauled out at the study sites may flush into the water or exhibit temporary modification in behavior (Level B harassment). Thus, Glacier Bay NP has requested an authorization to take harbor seals by Level B harassment only. Although Steller sea lions (
Glacier Bay NP plans to identify the onset of gull nesting; conduct mid-
Glacier Bay NP must conduct the gull monitoring studies to meet the requirements of a 2010 Record of Decision for a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) (NPS, 2010) which states that Glacier Bay NP must initiate a monitoring program for the gulls to inform future native egg harvests by the Hoonah Tlingit in Glacier Bay, AK. Glacier Bay NP also actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting sites to assess population trends over time (
A detailed description of the planned Glacier Bay NP project is provided in the
A notice of NMFS's proposal to issue an IHA to the NPS at Glacier Bay NP was published in the
A detailed description of the of the species likely to be affected by the Glacier Bay NP project, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Marine mammals under NMFS' jurisdiction that occur in the vicinity of the study sites in Glacier Bay NP include the harbor seal and Steller sea lion (Table 1).
Both are protected under the MMPA and the Steller sea lion is listed as endangered (Western Distinct Population Segment) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It was determined that take will not occur for Steller sea lions based on available survey data and for the fact that NPS will not survey a site if Steller sea lions are present. Therefore, Steller sea lions are not discussed further in this authorization.
Harbor seals of Glacier Bay are considered part of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock (Table 2)—ranging from Cape Fairweather southeast to Column Point, extending inland to Glacier Bay, Icy Strait, and from Hanus Reef south to Tenakee Inlet (Muto
The effects of noise and visual disturbance from the Glacier Bay NP activities for the gull monitoring and research project have the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The project would not result in permanent impacts to habitats used directly by marine mammals, such as haulout sites, nor impacts to food sources. The
Based on the available data, previous monitoring reports from Glacier Bay NP, and studies described in the proposed IHA, we anticipate that any pinnipeds found in the vicinity of the project could have short-term behavioral reactions (
NMFS does not anticipate that the planned activities would result in the injury, serious injury, or mortality of pinnipeds. NMFS does not anticipate that strikes or collisions would result from the movement of the motorboat. The planned activities will not result in any permanent impact on habitats used by marine mammals, including prey species and foraging habitat. The potential effects to marine mammals described in this section of the document do not take into consideration the monitoring and mitigation measures described later in this document (see the “Mitigation” and “Monitoring and Reporting” sections).
This section includes an estimate of the number of incidental “takes” for the authorization pursuant to this IHA, which informed both NMFS' consideration of whether the number of takes is “small” and the negligible impact determination.
Take in the form of harassment is expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
As described previously in the Effects section, Level B Harassment is expected to occur and is authorized in the numbers identified below. Based on the nature of the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures, Level A Harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized. The death of a marine mammal is also a type of incidental take. However, as described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized from this activity.
All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior. NMFS expects that the presence of Glacier Bay NP personnel could disturb animals hauled out and that the animals may alter their behavior or attempt to move away from the researchers.
Harbor seals may be disturbed when vessels approach or researchers go ashore for the purpose of monitoring gull colonies. Harbor seals tend to haul out in small numbers at study sites (2015-2016): Boulder Island—average 4.85 seals, Flapjack Island—average 11.22 seals, Geikie Rock—average 10.25 seals, and Lone Island average of 17.22 seals (see raw data from Tables 1 of the 2016 and 2015 Monitoring Report). Based on previous pinniped observations during gull monitoring (2015 and 2016) conducted by Glacier Bay NP, NMFS estimates that the research activities could potentially affect by Level B behavioral harassment 218 incidents of harassment to harbor seals over the course of the authorization. This number was calculated by multiplying the average number of seals observed at each site (2015-2016) by five visits per site for a total of 218 incidents of harassment (Table 3). The highest number of annual visits to each gull study site will be five, therefore it is expected that individual harbor seals at a given site will be disturbed no more than five times per year.
There can be greater numbers of seals on the survey islands then what is detected by the NPS during the gull surveys. Aerial survey maximum counts show that harbor seals sometimes haul out in large numbers at all four locations (see Table 1 of the application). However, harbor seals hauled out at Flapjack Island are generally on the southern end whereas the gull colony is on the northern end. Similarly, harbor seals on Boulder Island tend to haul out on the southern end while the gull colony is located and can be accessed on the northern end without disturbance. Aerial survey counts for harbor seals are conducted during low tide while ground and vessel surveys are conducted during high tide, which along with greater visibility during aerial surveys, may also contribute to why there are greater numbers of seals observed during the aerial surveys.
Subsistence harvest of harbor seals by Alaska Natives is exempted from the MMPA's take prohibition (16 U.S.C. 1371(b)(1)); however, subsistence harvest of harbor seals has not been permitted in Glacier Bay NP since 1974 (Catton, 1995). The extensive post-breeding seasonal distribution of seals from Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013) may expose seals to subsistence harvest outside of the park. Subsistence surveys and anthropological studies demonstrate that harbor seals may be harvested during all months; however, there are typically two distinct seasonal peaks for harvest of seals, which occur during spring and in autumn/early winter (de Laguna, 1972; Emmons, 1991). These time periods co-occur with the time period during which seals travel beyond the boundaries of Glacier Bay (Womble and Gende, 2013). The level of subsistence harvest on seals from Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock has not been quantified; however, subsistence reports from nearby communities have documented subsistence harvest (
In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, we must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses.
Glacier Bay NP has based the mitigation measures, which they will to implement during their research, on the following: (1) Protocols used during previous gull research activities as required by our previous authorizations for these activities; and (2) recommended best practices in Womble
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic and visual stimuli associated with the activities Glacier Bay NP and/or its designees will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
• Perform pre-survey monitoring before deciding to access a study site;
• Avoid accessing a site where Steller sea lions are present;
• Perform controlled and slow ingress to the study site to prevent flushing harbor seals and select a pathway of approach to minimize the number of marine mammals harassed;
• Monitor for offshore predators at study sites. Avoid approaching the study site if killer whales (
• Maintain a quiet research atmosphere in the visual presence of pinnipeds.
Prior to deciding to land onshore to conduct the study, the researchers will use high-powered image stabilizing binoculars from the watercraft to document the number, species, and location of hauled out marine mammals at each island. The vessels will maintain a distance of 100 to 500 meter (m) (328 to 1,640 feet) from the shoreline to allow the researchers to conduct pre-survey monitoring.
If there are Steller sea lions are present, the researchers will not approach the island and will not conduct gull monitoring and research.
The researchers will determine whether to approach the island based on type of animals present. Researchers will approach the island by motorboat at a speed of approximately 2 to 3 knots (2.3 to 3.4 miles per hour). This will provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic (flushing). The researchers will also select a pathway of approach farthest from the hauled out harbor seals to minimize disturbance.
If the researchers visually observe marine predators (
While onshore at study sites, the researchers will remain vigilant for hauled out marine mammals. If marine mammals are present, the researchers will move slowly and use quiet voices to minimize disturbance to the animals present.
NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of affecting the least practicable impact on the affected
• The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammal species or stocks;
• The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
• The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the general goals listed below:
1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number or number at biologically important time or location) to received levels of pile driving, or other activities expected to result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance of habitat during a biologically important time.
6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation—an increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.
In order to issue an incidental take authorization for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA that we must set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.” The Act's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for an incidental take authorization must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and our expectations of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals present in the action area.
Glacier Bay NP submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 13 of their application. Monitoring requirement NMFS prescribes shall improve our understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (
• Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological);
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) Population, species, or stock;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to marine mammals; and
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Glacier Bay NP will conduct marine mammal monitoring during the project, in order to implement the mitigation measures that require real-time monitoring. The researchers will monitor the area for pinnipeds during all research activities. Monitoring activities will consist of conducting and recording observations on pinnipeds within the vicinity of the research areas. The monitoring notes will provide dates, location, species, the researcher's activity, behavioral state, numbers of animals that were alert or moved greater than one meter, and numbers of pinnipeds that flushed into the water.
The method for recording disturbances follows those in Mortenson (1996). Glacier Bay NP will record disturbances on a three-point scale that represents an increasing seal response to the disturbance (Table 4). Glacier Bay will record the time, source, and duration of the disturbance, as well as an estimated distance between the source and haul-out. NMFS consider only responses falling into Levels 2 and 3 as harassment under the MMPA, under the terms of this authorization.
Glacier Bay NP complied with the monitoring requirements under the previous authorizations. NMFS posted the 2016 report on our Web site at
Glacier Bay NP can add to the knowledge of pinnipeds in the action area by noting observations of: (1) Unusual behaviors, numbers, or distributions of pinnipeds, such that any potential follow-up research can be conducted by the appropriate personnel; (2) tag-bearing carcasses of pinnipeds, allowing transmittal of the information to appropriate agencies and personnel; and (3) rare or unusual species of marine mammals for agency follow-up. Glacier Bay NP actively monitors harbor seals at breeding and molting haul out locations to assess trends over time (
Glacier Bay NP will submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS no later than 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The report will include a summary of the information gathered pursuant to the monitoring requirements set forth in the Authorization. Glacier Bay NP will submit a final report to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments on the draft report. If Glacier Bay NP receives no comments from NMFS on the report, NMFS will consider the draft report to be the final report.
The report will describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the project. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report will provide:
1. A summary and table of the dates, times, and weather during all research activities.
2. Species, number, location, and behavior of any marine mammals observed throughout all monitoring activities.
3. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals exposed to acoustic or visual stimuli associated with the research activities.
4. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the monitoring and mitigation measures of the Authorization and full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the authorization, such as an injury (Level A harassment), serious injury, or mortality (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Description and location of the incident (including water depth, if applicable);
• Environmental conditions (
• Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours preceding the incident;
• Species identification or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if equipment is available).
Glacier Bay NP shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with Glacier Bay NP to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Glacier Bay NP may not resume their activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead researcher determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
In the event that Glacier Bay NP discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities (
NMFS has defined negligible impact 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” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
• The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities;
• The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B harassment;
• The context in which the takes occur (
• The status of stock or species of marine mammals (
• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
• The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the following factors, NMFS does not expect Glacier Bay NP's specified activities to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, abandonment of the haul-out area, injury, serious injury, or mortality:
1. The takes from Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance. The effects of the research activities would be limited to short-term startle responses and localized behavioral changes due to the short and sporadic duration of the research activities;
2. The availability of alternate areas for pinnipeds to avoid disturbances from research operations. Anecdotal observations and results from previous monitoring reports also show that the pinnipeds returned to the various sites and did not permanently abandon haul-out sites after Glacier Bay NP conducted their research activities; and
3. There is little potential for stampeding events or large-scale flushing events leading to injury, serious injury, or mortality. Researchers will not access the survey sites if Steller sea lions are present. Harbor seals are a species that do not stampede, but flush, and injury or mortality is not anticipated from flushing events. Researchers will approach study sites slowly to provide enough time for any marine mammals present to slowly enter the water without panic.
We do not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities will occur as a result of Glacier Bay NP's activities and we do not authorize injury, serious injury, or mortality. Harbor seals may exhibit behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the area during the gull research activities to avoid human disturbance. Further, these activities will not take place in areas of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or pupping and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat. Due to the nature, degree, and context of the behavioral harassment anticipated, we do not expect the activities to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
NMFS does not expect pinnipeds to permanently abandon any area surveyed by researchers, as is evidenced by continued presence of pinnipeds at the sites during annual gull monitoring. In summary, NMFS anticipates that impacts to hauled-out harbor seals during Glacier Bay NP's research activities would be behavioral harassment of limited duration (
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that Glacier Bay NP's activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, one species of marine mammal under our jurisdiction. For harbor seals, this estimate is small (three percent) relative of the Glacier Bay/Icy Strait stock of harbor seals (7,210 seals, see Table 2).
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires us to determine that the taking will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Glacier Bay NP prohibits subsistence harvest of harbor seals within the Park (Catton, 1995). Thus, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Issuance of an MMPA authorization requires compliance with the ESA. No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has
In compliance with NOAA policy, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
NMFS has issued an IHA to the NPS at Glacier Bay NP for the harassment of small numbers of harbor seals incidental to conducting monitoring and research studies on glaucous-winged gulls within Glacier Bay NP, Alaska provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the extension of two information collections (ICs), one concerning the filing of an annual report provided for in the Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles regulations and the other concerning the filing of a Subpart C Election Form and other reporting and recordkeeping requirements provided for in subpart C, part 39 of the Commission Regulations. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0081 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's Web site, at
•
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method.
Tracey Wingate, Special Counsel, Division of Clearing and Risk, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5318; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This notice solicits comments on two ICs contained in OMB Control No. 3038-0081: (A) The filing of an annual report provided for in Derivatives Clearing Organization General Provisions and Core Principles
(A)
(B)
The SIDCO-Subpart C DCO Final Rule also established the process whereby DCO and DCO applicants, respectively, may elect to become Subpart C DCOs subject to the provisions of Subpart C. The election involves filing the Subpart C Election Form contained in appendix B to part 39 of the Commission's regulations, which involves completing certifications, providing exhibits, and drafting and publishing responses to the PFMI Disclosure Framework and PFMI Quantitative Information Disclosure, as applicable. Additionally, the SIDCO-Subpart C DCO Final Rule provides for Commission requests for supplemental information from those requesting Subpart C DCO status; requires amendments to the Subpart C Election Form in the event that a DCO or DCO Applicant, respectively, discovers a material omission or error in, or if there is a material change in, the information provided in the Subpart C Election Form; to submit a notice of withdrawal to the Commission in the event the DCO or DCO applicant determines not to seek Subpart C DCO status prior to such status becoming effective; and procedures by which a Subpart C DCO may rescind its Subpart C DCO status after it has been permitted to take effect. Further, each of these requirements implies recordkeeping that would be produced by a DCO to the Commission on an occasional basis to demonstrate compliance with the rules. The information that would be collected under in subpart C, part 39 of the Commission Regulations is necessary for the Commission to determine whether a DCO meets the Subpart C DCO standards and is likely to be able to maintain compliance with such standards; to evaluate whether SIDCOs and Subpart C DCOs are complying with Commission regulations; and to perform risk analyses with respect to SIDCOs and Subpart C DCOs.
With respect to the collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of 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;
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
44 U.S.C. 3501
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.
Open to the public Monday, June 26, 2017 from 9:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The address of the open meeting is the Gatehouse, 8111 Gatehouse Road, Room 252A/B, Falls Church, Virginia 22042 (registration requested; see guidance in
CAPT Juliann Althoff, Medical Corps, U.S. Navy, (703) 681-6653 (Voice), (703) 681-9539 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Web site:
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Availability of Materials for the Meeting: Additional information, including the agenda, is available at the DHB Web site,
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel will take place.
Open to the public, Friday, June 16, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
One Liberty Center, Suite 1432, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Maria Fried, 703-571-2664 (Voice), 703-693-3903 (Facsimile),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Sheryl Wilson, 202-453-7166.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact David Steels, 202-245-6520.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing an extension of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Rebecca Walawender, 202-245-7399.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers 84.305A, 84.305C, 84.305H, 84.305L, 84.324A, 84.324B, 84.324L, and 84.324N.
The dates when applications are available and the deadlines for transmittal of applications invited under this notice are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the Requests for Applications (RFAs) that are posted at the following Web sites:
The contact person associated with a particular research competition is listed in the chart at the end of this notice, as well as in the relevant RFA and application package.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
The Institute's National Center for Education Research (NCER) will hold five competitions: One competition for education research; one competition for education research and development centers; one competition for partnerships and collaborations focused on problems of practice or policy; and two competitions for low-cost, short-duration evaluation of education interventions.
The Institute's National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) will hold five competitions: One competition for special education research; one competition for research training programs in special education; two competitions for low-cost, short-duration evaluation of special education interventions; and one competition for research networks focused on critical problems of policy and practice in special education.
• Cognition and Student Learning.
• Early Learning Programs and Policies.
• Education Leadership.
• Education Technology.
• Effective Teachers and Effective Teaching.
• English Learners.
• Improving Education Systems.
• Postsecondary and Adult Education.
• Reading and Writing.
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.
• Social and Behavioral Context for Academic Learning.
• Special Topics, which include:
• Arts in Education.
• Career and Technical Education.
• Systemic Approaches to Educating Highly Mobile Students.
• Improving Education Outcomes for Disadvantaged
Students in Choice Schools.
• Improving Rural Education.
• Writing in Secondary Schools.
• Exploring Science Teaching in Elementary School Classrooms.
• Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research.
• Evaluation of State and Local Education Programs and Policies.
• Autism Spectrum Disorders.
• Cognition and Student Learning in Special Education.
• Early Intervention and Early Learning in Special Education.
• Families of Children with Disabilities.
• Mathematics and Science Education.
• Professional Development for Teachers and School-Based Service Providers.
• Reading, Writing, and Language Development.
• Social and Behavioral Outcomes to Support Learning.
• Special Education Policy, Finance, and Systems.
• Technology for Special Education.
• Transition Outcomes for Secondary Students with Disabilities.
• Postdoctoral Research Training Program in Special Education and Early Intervention.
• Early Career Development and Mentoring.
• Methods Training Using Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial (SMART) Designs for Adaptive Interventions in Education.
• Network Lead.
• Research Team.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
The Institute may waive any of the following limits on awards for a specific competition or topic in the special case that the peer review process results in a tie between two or more grant applications, making it impossible to adhere to the limits without funding only some of the equally ranked applications. In that case, the Institute may make a larger number of awards to include all applications of the same rank.
For NCER's Education Research and Development Center competition, we intend to fund one grant under the Choice Schools topic, one grant under the Rural Education topic, one grant under the Writing topic, and one grant under the Science Teaching topic.
For NCSER's Research Training Programs in Special Education competition, we intend to fund no more than one grant under the Methods Training Using SMART Designs for Adaptive Interventions in Education topic.
For NCSER's Research Networks Focused on Critical Problems of Policy and Practice in Special Education competition, we intend to fund one Network Lead grant and up to four Research Team grants. At least two Research Team grants are needed to form the Network. If only one Research Team grant is awarded, the grantee will conduct the project independently. No Network Lead grant will be awarded unless at least two Research Team grants are awarded.
Contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of highly-rated unfunded applications from the FY 2018 competitions.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2.
1.
The selection criteria and review procedures for the competitions are contained in the RFAs. The RFAs also include information on the maximum award available under each grant competition. Applications that include proposed budgets higher than the relevant maximum award will not be considered for an award.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (
2.
3.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Application packages for grants under these competitions must be obtained from and submitted electronically using the
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5.
6.
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site:
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through,
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also, note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
In addition, if you are submitting your application via
7.
Applications to the grant competitions contained in this notice must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement
You may access the electronic grant applications for the grant competitions contained in this notice at
Please note the following:
• When you enter the
• Applications received by
• The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through
• You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through
• You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. Any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (
• After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from
Once your application is successfully validated by
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by
• We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the
If you submit an application after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under
The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the
• You do not have access to the internet; or
• You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the
• No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: [
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number: [
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
1.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The ICR, entitled: “Toxic Chemical Release Reporting and Renewals of Form R, Form A, and Form R Schedule 1” and identified by EPA ICR No. 1363.26 and OMB Control No. 2025-0009, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2017. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and comment.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2017-0057, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1. The facility has 10 or more fulltime employee equivalents (
2. The facility is included in a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code listed at 40 CFR 372.23 or under Executive Order 13693, federal facilities regardless of their industry classification; and
3. The facility manufactures (defined to include importing), processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI) chemical in quantities greater than the established thresholds for the specific chemical in the course of a calendar year.
Facilities that meet these criteria must file a Form R report or, in some cases, may submit a Form A Certification Statement, for each listed toxic chemical for which the criteria are met. As specified in EPCRA section 313(a), facilities must submit reports for any calendar year on or before July 1 of the following year. For example, reporting year 2015 data should have been submitted and certified on or before July 1, 2016.
EPA maintains the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI reporting at 40 CFR 372.65 and the Agency publishes this list each year as Table II in the
The TRI data are unique in providing a multi-media (air, water, and land) picture of toxic chemical releases, transfers, and other waste management activities by covered facilities on a yearly basis. While other environmental media programs provide some toxic chemical data and related permit data, TRI data are unique with regard to the types of chemicals and industry sectors covered as well as the frequency of reporting. Facilities subject to TRI reporting must submit reports for each calendar year to EPA and the State or Indian Country in which they are located by July 1 of the following year.
Respondents may claim trade secrecy for a chemical's identity as described in EPCRA Section 322 and its implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 350. EPA will disclose information covered by a claim of trade secrecy only to the extent permitted by and in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR part 350 and 40 CFR part 2).
The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
There is an increase of 41,277 hours (from 3,555,998 hours to 3,597,275 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects a slight increase in the number of facilities reporting to TRI. This change is an adjustment.
OMB approved the ICR for Form R, the Form A Certification Statement, and Form R Schedule 1 on November 24, 2014, with the expiration date of November 30, 2017. EPA proposes making several changes to the TRI reporting forms and associated instructions. These revisions are aimed at improving the user experience by clarifying the intent of questions.
1. Provide Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) code as a separate element on the form. (Part I: Section 4.1)
2. When reporting a metal compound, indicate whether report also includes the elemental metal. (Part II: Section 1)
3. Add sub-categories of uses. (Part II: Sections 3.2a, b and Sections 3.3a, b, c)
4. Add finer gradation for range codes used for Maximum Amount of the EPCRA Section 313 Chemical On-site at Any Time during the Calendar Year. (Part II: Section 4)
5. Add management codes for the transfer of waste to POTWs. (Part II: Section 6.1)
6. Separate 8.8 into separate boxes for quantities associated with (1) remedial actions, (2) catastrophic events, and (3) one-time events not associated with production processes. (Part II: Section 8.8)
7. When reporting an air release of chromium, indicate whether the release contains Chromium-VI (hexavalent chromium). (Part II: Section 9.1)
8. Add a free text field for each chemical listed on Form A. (Part II: Section 3)
9. Add a free text field for facility-level info on Form A. (Part III: Section 1.1)
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice seeking nominations for technical experts to serve on its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory committee to the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in the
Any member of the public needing additional information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations may contact Mr. Tom Tracy, Office of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Mail Code 8104-R, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice mail at: (202) 564-6518; via fax at: (202) 565-2911; or via email at:
In the notice FR Doc. 2017-10672, published in the issue of Thursday, May 25, 2017 (82 FR 24120), make the following correction:
On page 24121, in the third column, first full paragraph, in the ninth line, remove the date “July 21, 2017” and add in its place the date “June 30, 2017”.
Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.
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 June 26, 2017.
1.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project:
Comments on this notice must be received by July 31, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a request for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to re-approve for an additional 3 years, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the generic clearance for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to survey the users of AHRQ's work products and services, OMB control number 0935-0106. The current clearance was approved on November 12, 2014 and will expire on November 30, 2017.
AHRQ will undertake customer surveys to assess its work products and services provided to its customers, to identify problem areas, and to determine how they can be improved. Surveys conducted under this generic clearance are not required by regulation and will not be used by AHRQ to
The information collected through focus groups and voluntary customer surveys will be used by AHRQ to identify strengths and weaknesses in products and services to make improvements that are practical and feasible. Information from these customer surveys will be used to plan and redirect resources and efforts to improve or maintain a high quality of service to the lay and health professional public.
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated total burden hours for the respondents. Mail surveys are estimated to average 15 minutes, telephone surveys 40 minutes, web-based surveys 10 minutes, focus groups two hours, and in-person interviews are estimated to average 50 minutes. Mail surveys may also be sent to respondents via email, and may include a telephone non-response follow-up. Telephone non-response follow-up for mailed surveys does not count as a telephone survey. The total burden hours for the 3 years of the clearance is estimated to be 10,900 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden for the respondents. The total cost burden for the 3 years of the clearance is estimated to be $128,757.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, AHRQ has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Comments must be submitted July 31, 2017.
Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
To request additional information, please contact: Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, AHRQ has submitted a 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) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Qualitative feedback is information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. The feedback will contribute directly to the improvement of program management. The current clearance was approved on November 11, 2014 (OMB Control Number 0935-0179) and will expire on November 30, 2017.
Below we provide AHRQ's projected average annual estimates for the next three years:
The total number of respondents across all 10 activities in a given year is 10,900.
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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 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,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control No. 0920-1027; Expiration 8/31/2017)—Revision—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP).
The information collection activity will garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield
Feedback collected under this generic clearance will provide useful information, but it will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
This is a revision to the previously approved collection to reduce the burden hours from 12,400 to 9,690 hours as a result of the previous usage and anticipated future usage of this Generic Information Collection. Respondents will be screened and selected from Individuals and Households, Businesses, Organizations, and/or State, Local or Tribal Government. Below we provide CDC's projected annualized estimate for the next three years. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection activity are 9,690.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on “Backyard Integrated Tick Management Project” which will evaluate the effectiveness of specific tick control methods used on single versus multiple adjacent properties to suppress host-seeking ticks infected with Lyme disease spirochetes and to reduce human tick bites, and help the CDC better understand human landscape use patterns and tick exposure locations.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0036 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The combined number of confirmed and probable Lyme disease cases have exceeded 30,000 in all years since 2008, and recent estimates suggest that the true number of Lyme disease cases may be 10-fold higher. There is no Lyme disease vaccine for use in humans and prevention of infection is therefore completely reliant on personal protective measures (avoiding tick habitat, use of repellent, tick checks or prompt tick removal, etc.) and methods to suppress vector ticks in the environment.
The primary goal of this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of specific tick/pathogen control methods used on single versus multiple adjacent properties on the risk of human exposure to ticks. The secondary goal is to better understand human landscape use patterns and tick exposure locations. The project was initiated in direct response to knowledge gaps, identified by CDC Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), for the use of integrated tick vector/rodent reservoir management to reduce human risk of exposure to Ixodes scapularis ticks, the sole vector of Lyme disease in the Northeast.
Resulting data is intended to be used to provide suggestions for improving tick/pathogen control methods used in the environment.
Information will be collected, under protocols approved by the institutional review boards (IRBs) at Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) and the University of Rhode Island (URI), from inhabitants of residential properties to (i) compare the effectiveness of an integrated tick management approach at single-treated residential properties vs. contiguously-treated residential properties to reduce human tick bites and (ii) increase the understanding of where people encounter ticks, both near their homes and in other outdoor settings.
Another potential positive outcome of the information collection is more effective targeting of tick control efforts to high risk areas, minimizing pesticide use. Not collecting the information would lead to inadequate evaluation of the implemented integrated tick management program (solely focusing on host-seeking ticks collected from the vegetation) as well as the unacceptable status quo for detailed knowledge of where people encounter ticks within their residential properties and on the residential properties versus elsewhere.
Information will be collected by WCSU and URI researchers from inhabitants (adults and children) of participating residential properties (freestanding homes with tick habitat on the property) located in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Consenting participants will complete one introductory survey by telephone, projected to last no more than 15 minutes. In May-August of Years 1-4, participants will also complete an emailed monthly tick encounter survey about the number of ticks found on each member of the household and each household member's tick-borne disease status, projected to take no more than 10 minutes per month to complete. An end-of-season survey will also be administered in March/April each year, projected to take no more than 10 minutes to complete.
In addition, participants will be asked to record location of daily activity on behalf of themselves and household members each day over the first week of June in a single year via emailed daily surveys, projected to take 70 minutes over the week of participation. Lastly, an end-of-study survey will be administered in September 2020, projected to take no more than 15 minutes. In total, we expect approximately two hours or less of total time spent on surveys by consented participants in each year of the study. All survey instruments have been approved by the IRBs at WCSU and URI.
The collection of information is conducted by WCSU, and its subcontractor, URI, as part of a Cooperative Agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1U01CK0004912-01). The Cooperative Agreement was established based on WCSU competing successfully for CDC RFA-CK-16-002 (Spatially Scalable Integrated Tick Vector/Rodent Reservoir Management to Reduce Human Risk of Exposure to Ixodes scapularis Ticks Infected with Lyme Disease Spirochetes).
This study is authorized by Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).
There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on an information collection titled “Zika Virus Enhanced Surveillance of Selected Populations.” This information collection will help state health departments better define the public health burden and clinical characteristics of Zika virus disease.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0052 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Zika virus is a mosquito-borne flavivirus primarily transmitted to humans by Aedes mosquitoes. Zika virus infections can also be transmitted congenitally, at the time of birth from a viremic mother to her newborn, sexually, through blood transfusion, and through inadvertent laboratory exposure. Most Zika virus infections are asymptomatic. Clinical illness, when it occurs, is generally mild and characterized by acute onset of fever, maculopapular rash, arthralgia, and/or nonpurulent conjunctivitis. As routine surveillance data have been reported to CDC, it has become apparent that the
This information is essential to the CDC's ongoing Zika response in order to be able to develop more specific guidance and other informational tools for clinicians who care for patients and assist public health officials in targeting prevention messages towards high risk groups. This information will help healthcare providers recognize Zika virus disease among their patients and allow them to alert their state or local health department of suspect cases to facilitate diagnosis and mitigate the risk for local transmission.
CDC cannot reasonably comply with the normal OMB clearance procedures given the need for these data to evaluate and revise existing guidance documents and informational products prior to the summer months when we anticipate that Zika virus transmission in the Americas will substantially increase.
CDC will request an accelerated OMB review to give CDC the ability to rapidly answer urgent remaining questions that will shape the course of this public health emergency response.
The specific goals and objectives are:
1. Describe the clinical manifestations and outcomes among:
a. Patients hospitalized for Zika virus disease.
b. Children <18 years of age with postnatally acquired Zika virus disease.
c. Children of different age groups.
d. Persons with neurologic symptoms associated with Zika virus disease.
2. Assess for unique clinical feature of Zika virus disease in children <18 years of age.
3. Compare demographics, underlying medical conditions, and acute symptoms among cases hospitalized and not hospitalized for Zika virus disease.
Basic demographic information, clinical, and laboratory data will be collected by participating health departments from patients/guardians, providers, or medical records as appropriate. Many of the data elements included in the Enhanced Surveillance Forms are standard ArboNET variables covered by OMB Control No. 0920-0728.
Additional data elements requested for this enhanced surveillance project are sometimes already routinely collected by health departments but are not reported to CDC.
Once eligible cases are identified by participating health departments, staff will extract data already collected using pre-existing case report forms and available medical records.
If data are missing in existing records, patients/caregivers or healthcare providers will be contacted telephonically using a standard script and the case investigation form to collect any additional data elements needed.
Once data are collected, participating sites will submit data to CDC through secure means. Data will be coded prior to submission to CDC for analysis purposes.
There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.
Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). NHSN is a system designed to accumulate, exchange, and integrate relevant information and resources among private and public stakeholders to support local and national efforts to protect patients and promote healthcare safety.
Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0047 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
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. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a three-year approval of the
The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is a system designed to accumulate, exchange, and integrate relevant information and resources among private and public stakeholders to support local and national efforts to protect patients and promote healthcare safety. Specifically, the data is used to determine the magnitude of various healthcare-associated adverse events and trends in the rates of these events among patients and healthcare workers with similar risks.
The data collected will be used to inform and detect changes in the epidemiology of adverse events resulting from new and current medical therapies and changing risks. The NHSN currently consists of five components: Patient Safety, Healthcare Personnel Safety, Biovigilance, Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF), and Dialysis. The Outpatient Procedure Component is on track to be released in NHSN in 2018. The development of this component has been previously delayed to obtain additional user feedback and support from outside partners.
Changes were made to four facility surveys. Based on user feedback and internal reviews of the annual facility surveys it was determined that questions and response options be amended, removed, or added to fit the evolving uses of the annual facility surveys. Also, the surveys are being increasingly used to help intelligently interpret the other data elements reported into NHSN. Currently, the surveys are used to appropriately risk adjust the numerator and denominator data entered into NHSN while also guiding decisions on future division priorities for prevention.
Further, two new forms were added to expand NHSN surveillance to enhance data collection by Ambulatory Surgical Centers to identify areas where prevention of SSIs may be improved. An additional 14 forms were modified within the Hemovigilance module to streamline data collection/entry for adverse reaction events.
Overall, minor revisions have been made to a total of 38 forms within the package to clarify and/or update surveillance definitions, increase or decrease the number of reporting facilities, and adding new forms. The previously approved NHSN package included 70 individual collection forms; the current revision request includes a total of 72 forms. The reporting burden will decrease by 811,985 hours, for a total of 5,922,953 hours.
This collection of information is authorized by the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 242b, 242k, and 242m (d)). There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.
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.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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:
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
This information collection request collects information voluntarily submitted to CDRH on actual or potential health risk concerns about a medical device or radiological product or its use. Because, prior to the establishment of the electronic submission process for voluntary allegations to CDRH, there had been no established guidelines or instructions on how to submit an allegation to CDRH, allegations often contained minimal information and were received via phone calls, emails, or conversationally. CDRH has established a consistent format and process for the submission of device allegations that enhances our timeliness in receiving, assessing, and evaluating voluntary allegations. The information provided in the allegations received by CDRH may be used to clarify the recurrence or emergence of significant device-related risks to the general public and the need to initiate educational outreach or regulatory action to minimize or mitigate identified risks.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on July 28, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Web Cast and will be available at the following link:
CAPT Serina Hunter-Thomas or Rosanna Harvey, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6307C, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, at 240-402-5771
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact CAPT Serina Hunter-Thomas at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at:
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 409(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) provides that a food additive shall be deemed to be unsafe, unless: (1) The additive and its use, or intended use, are in conformity with a regulation issued under § 409 that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may be safely used; (2) the additive and its use, or intended use, conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use; or (3) a food contact notification submitted under § 409(h) is effective. FAPs are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new food additive or to amend the conditions of use permitted under an existing food additive regulation. Section 171.1 of FDA's regulations (21 CFR 171.1) specifies the information that a petitioner must submit in order to establish that the proposed use of a food additive is safe and to secure the publication of a food additive regulation describing the conditions under which the additive may be safely used. Parts 172, 173, 179, and 180 (21 CFR parts 172, 173, 179, and 180) contain labeling requirements for certain food additives to ensure their safe use.
Section 721(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(a)) provides that a color additive shall be deemed to be unsafe unless the additive and its use are in conformity with a regulation that describes the condition(s) under which the additive may safely be used, or the additive and its use conform to the terms of an exemption for investigational use issued under § 721(f). CAPs are submitted by individuals or companies to obtain approval of a new color additive or a change in the conditions of use permitted for a color additive that is already approved. Section 71.1 of the Agency's regulations (21 CFR 71.1) specifies the information that a petitioner must submit to establish the safety of a color additive and to secure the issuance of a regulation permitting its use. FDA's color additive labeling requirements in § 70.25 (21 CFR 70.25) require that color additives that are to be used in food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics be labeled with sufficient information to ensure their safe use.
FDA scientific personnel reviews FAPs to ensure the safety of the intended use of the additive in or on food, or that may be present in food as a result of its use in articles that contact food. Likewise, FDA personnel review CAPs to ensure the safety of the color additive prior to its use in food, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices.
Interested persons may transmit FAP or CAP regulatory submissions in electronic format or paper format to the Office of Food Additive Safety in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition using Form FDA 3503. Form FDA 3503 helps the respondent organize their submission to focus on the information needed for FDA's safety review. Form FDA 3503 can also be used to organize information within a master file submitted in support of petitions according to the items listed on the form. Master files can be used as repositories for information that can be referenced in multiple submissions to the Agency, thus minimizing paperwork burden for food and color additive approvals. FDA estimates that the amount of time for respondents to complete FDA Form 3503 will continue to be 1 hour.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The estimate of burden for food additive or color additive petitions is based on FDA's experience with the petition process. The burden for this information collection has changed since the last OMB approval because the Generally Recognized as Safe affirmations have been removed pursuant to the implementation of “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe; Final Rule,” August 17, 2016 (81 FR 54960), 21 CFR parts 20, 25, 170, 184, 186, and 570. FDA is retaining its prior estimate of the number of petitions received because the average number of petitions received annually has varied little over the past 10 years. The figures for hours per response are based on estimates from experienced persons in the Agency and in industry. Although the estimated hour burden varies with the type of petition submitted, an average petition involves analytical work and appropriate toxicological studies, as well as the work of drafting the petition itself. The burden varies depending on the complexity of the petition, including the amount and types of data needed for scientific analysis.
Color additives are subjected to payment of fees for the petitioning process. The listing fee for a color additive petition ranges from $1,600 to $3,000, depending on the intended use of the color additive and the scope of the requested amendment. A complete schedule of fees is set forth in § 70.19. An average of one Category A and one Category B color additive petition is expected per year. The maximum color additive petition fee for a Category A petition is $2,600 and the maximum color additive petition fee for a Category B petition is $3,000. Because an average of 2 CAPs are expected per calendar year, the estimated total annual cost burden to petitioners for this startup cost would be less than or equal to $5,600 ((1 × $2,600) + (1 × $3,000) listing fees = $5,600). There are no capital costs associated with CAPs. The labeling requirements for food and color additives were designed to specify the minimum information needed for labeling in order that food and color manufacturers may comply with all applicable provisions of the FD&C Act and other specific labeling acts administered by FDA. Label information does not require any additional information gathering beyond what is already required to assure conformance with all specifications and limitations in any given food or color additive regulation. Label information does not have any specific recordkeeping requirements unique to preparing the label. Therefore, because labeling requirements under § 70.25 for a particular color additive involve information required as part of the CAP safety review process, the estimate for number of respondents is the same for § 70.25 and § 71.1, and the burden hours for labeling are included in the estimate for § 71.1. Also, because labeling requirements under parts 172, 173, 179, and 180 for particular food additives involve information required as part of the FAP safety review process under § 171.1, the burden hours for labeling are included in the estimate for § 171.1.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pediatric Oncology Subcommittee of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document.
The public meeting will be held on June 21, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. and June 22, 2017, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon.
FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-2731. The docket will close on June 20, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by June 20, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before June 20, 2017. The
Comments received on or before June 7, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Lauren D. Tesh, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, Fax: 301-847-8533, email:
On June 22, 2017, information will be presented to gauge investigator interest in exploring potential pediatric development plans for two products in various stages of development for adult cancer indications. The subcommittee will consider and discuss issues concerning diseases to be studied, patient populations to be included, and possible study designs in the development of these products for pediatric use. The discussion will also provide information to the Agency pertinent to the formulation of written requests for pediatric studies, if appropriate. The products under consideration are: (1) Prexasertib, presentation by Dista Products/Eli Lilly and Company and (2) olaratumab, presentation by Eli Lilly and Company.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at
Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Lauren D. Tesh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing a list of information collections that have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,301-796-7726,
The following is a list of FDA information collections recently approved by OMB under § 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The OMB control number and expiration date of OMB approval for each information collection are shown in table 1. Copies of the supporting statements for the information collections are available on the Internet at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by July 31, 2017. Late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017. The
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information
FDA regulations at § 330.14 (21 CFR 330.14) establish additional criteria and procedures for classifying OTC drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded. These regulations state that OTC drug products introduced into the U.S. market after the OTC drug review began and OTC drug products without any marketing experience in the United States can be evaluated under the monograph process if the conditions (
Based on our experience with submissions we have received under § 330.14, we estimate that we will receive two TEAs and two safety and effectiveness submissions each year, and that it will take approximately 1,525 hours to prepare a TEA and 2,350 hours to prepare a comprehensive safety and effectiveness submission. This information is reflected in rows 1 and 2 of table 1.
Recently FDA revised its regulations at 21 CFR part 330 (81 FR 84465, November 23, 2016), thus adding 6 hours to FDA's estimated annual reporting burden for the information collection. Specifically, § 330.14(j) clarifies the requirements on content and format criteria for a safety and effectiveness data submission, and provides procedures for FDA's review of the submissions and determination of whether a submission is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Section 330.14(j)(3) describes the process for cases in which FDA refuses to file the safety and effectiveness data submission. Under § 330.14(j)(3), if FDA refuses to file the submission, the Agency will notify the sponsor in writing, state the reason(s) for the refusal, and provide the sponsor with 30 days in which to submit a written request for an informal conference with the Agency about whether the Agency should file the submission. We estimate that approximately one respondent will annually submit a request for an informal conference, and that preparing and submitting each request will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 3 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(j)(4)(iii), the safety and effectiveness data submission must contain a signed statement that the submission represents a complete safety and effectiveness data submission and that the submission includes all the safety and effectiveness data and information available to the sponsor at the time of the submission, whether positive or negative. We estimate that approximately two respondents annually will submit such signed statements, and that preparing and submitting each signed statement will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 4 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(k)(1), FDA, in response to a written request from a sponsor, may withdraw consideration of a TEA submitted under § 330.14(c) or a safety and effectiveness data submission submitted under § 330.14(f). We estimate that approximately one respondent will annually submit such a request, and that preparing and submitting the request will take approximately 1 hour. This is reflected in row 5 of table 1.
Under § 330.14(k)(2), a sponsor may request that FDA not withdraw consideration of a TEA or safety and effectiveness data submission. We estimate one respondent will annually submit such a request, and that preparing and submitting the request will take approximately 2 hours. This is reflected in row 6 of table 1.
Accordingly, FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to § 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in § 552b(c)(4) and § 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to 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 via web conference on June 13, 2017, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EDT.
The Board will meet in open session to provide updates on the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program, and updates from our federal partners in the Department of Transportation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Defense, and the National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP).
The public is invited to listen via web conference only. There will be no on-site attendance available. Due to the limited call-in capacity, registration is requested. 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. To obtain the web conference call-in numbers and access codes, registration can be completed online at
Meeting information, materials (presentations, meeting summary, transcripts), and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Advisory Committees Web site,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Committee management; request for applicants for appointment to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is requesting individuals who are interested in serving on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee to apply for appointment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee is tasked with providing advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on matters related to the performance of inspections coinciding with the assessment of an agriculture, customs, or immigration user fee.
Applications for membership should be submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the address below on or before July 14, 2017.
If you wish to apply for membership, your application should be submitted by one of the following means:
•
•
•
Ms. Wanda Tate, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229; telephone (202) 344-1440; facsimile (202) 325-4290.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee is an advisory committee established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
The Committee is expected to meet at least once per year. Additional meetings may be held with the approval of the Designated Federal Officer. Committee meetings shall be open to the public unless a determination is made by the appropriate Department of Homeland Security official in accordance with Department of Homeland Security policy and directives that the meeting should be closed in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
Appointees will serve a two-year term of office to run concurrent with the duration of the charter.
No person who is required to register under the
Members who are currently serving on the Committee are eligible to re-apply for membership provided that they are not in their second consecutive term and that they have met the attendance requirements. A new application letter is required. Members will not be paid compensation by the Federal Government for their services with respect to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee.
Any interested person wishing to serve on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection User Fee Advisory Committee must provide the following:
• Statement of interest and reasons for application;
• Complete professional resume;
• Home address and telephone number;
• Work address, telephone number, and email address; and
• Statement of the industry you represent.
The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 an extension without change of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the Disaster Assistance Registration process.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact Elizabeth McDowell, Supervisory Program Specialist, FEMA, Recovery Directorate, at (540) 686-3630 for further information. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or email address:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-288) (the Stafford Act), as amended, is the legal basis for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide financial assistance and services to individuals who apply for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally declared disaster. Regulations in title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subpart D, “Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households,” implement the policy and procedures set forth in section 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, as amended. This program provides financial assistance and, if necessary, direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a direct result of a major disaster or emergency, have uninsured or under-insured, damage, necessary expenses, and serious needs which are not covered through other means.
Individuals and households may apply for assistance under the Individuals and Households program in person, via telephone or internet. FEMA utilizes paper forms 009-0-1 (English) Disaster Assistance Registration or FEMA Form 009-0-2 (Spanish), Solicitud/Registro Para Asistencia De Resastre to register individuals.
FEMA provides direct assistance to eligible applicants pursuant to the requirements in 44 CFR 206.117. To receive direct assistance for temporary housing (
Federal public benefits are provided to U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or qualified aliens. A parent or guardian of a minor child may be eligible for disaster assistance if, the minor child is a US citizen, Non-citizen national or qualified alien and the minor child lives with the parent or guardian. (
By signing FEMA Forms 009-0-3, Declaration and Release or 009-0-4, Declaración Y Autorización an applicant or a member of the applicant's household is attesting to being a US citizen, non-citizen national or qualified alien. A parent or guardian of a minor child signing FEMA Forms 009-0-3, Declaration and Release or 009-0-4, Declaración Y Autorización is attesting that the minor child is a US citizen, non-citizen national or qualified alien.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 an extension without change of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the need to continue collecting information from individuals and States in order to provide and/or administer disaster assistance through the Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households Programs.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2017.
To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:
(1)
(2)
(3)
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Contact for further information. Elizabeth McDowell, Program Specialist, 540-686-3630. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Act) is the legal basis for FEMA to provide disaster related assistance and services to individuals who apply for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a federally declared disaster. The Individuals and Households Program (IHP) (the Act at 5174, Federal Assistance to Individuals and Households) provides financial assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a direct result of a major disaster or emergency have necessary expenses and serious needs. The “Other Needs Assistance” (ONA) provision of IHP provides disaster assistance to address needs other than housing, such as personal property, transportation, etc.
The delivery of the ONA provision of IHP is contingent upon the State/Tribe choosing an administrator for the assistance. States/Tribes satisfy the selection of an administrator of ONA by completing the Administrative Option Agreement (FEMA Form 010-0-11), which establishes a plan for the delivery of ONA. This agreement establishes a partnership with FEMA and inscribes the plan for the delivery of disaster assistance. The agreement is used to identify the State/Tribe's proposed level of support and participation during disaster recovery. In response to Super Storm Sandy (October 2012), Congress added “child care” expenses as a category of ONA through the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), Pub. L. 113-2. Section 1108 of the SRIA amends section 408(e)(1) of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e)(1)), giving FEMA the specific authority to pay for “child care” expenses as disaster assistance under ONA.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by July 31, 2017.
Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or
Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
Our Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices use information that we collect on permit applications to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties, including:
(1) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703
(2) Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371
(3) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668).
All Service permit applications are in the 3-200 series of forms, each tailored to a specific activity based on the requirements for specific types of permits. We collect standard identifier information for all permits. The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular activity.
Information collection requirements associated with the Federal fish and wildlife permit applications and reports for migratory birds and eagles are currently approved under two different OMB control numbers, 1018-0022, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22,” and 1018-0167, “Eagle Take Permits and Fees, 50 CFR 22.” In this revision of 1018-0022, we are including all of the information collection requirements associated with both OMB Control Numbers. If OMB approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Number 1018-0167.
On February 24, 2017, we published in the
A respondent feels the Service should not issue permits to kill eagles or other birds and wildlife. She also expressed the need to preserve and protect birds and wildlife.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibit the killing of birds and eagles without a permit and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish a permitting program. The regulations implementing these acts (50 CFR parts 21 and 22) and the permitting program established under these regulations define the terms under which a permit to kill birds and eagles can be issued. The Service is obligated by these laws and regulations to issue a permit to anyone who shows a need and meets the requirements to receive one. Permits to kill birds and eagles are limited to specific instances such as for property damage, scientific study or protection of human health and safety. The number of birds and eagles authorized to be killed are strictly controlled based on the specific needs of the applicant, the population status of the birds or eagles applied for, and the direct effects any permit issued would have on these birds or eagles. Only after we establish that the killing of the birds or eagles requested will not affect the population of those birds will we issue a permit. Through this permitting program, we ensure they are protected and preserved for future generations of Americans to enjoy.
The Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) provided the following comments:
Not only is the collection of information from those applying for the permits is necessary for good governance, it is also vital to the calculation of the burden that each agency uses to inform future regulation implementation. The collection of the information will not have practical utility if the Service does not absorb this information and incorporate it into future estimates.
We collect information from the public for a number of purposes. The information on applications is used to determine the identity of the applicant, the ability of the applicant to successfully conduct the requested activity, and whether the applicant meets all the necessary qualifications to conduct such activities. Reports (annual or other) are used to cumulatively assess the effects of the activities on migratory bird populations to ensure that our management is appropriate and that there are no effects that would significantly impact either the populations' status or jeopardize the continued existence of any particular bird species for use and enjoyment by the American public. Further, not only do we utilize this collected information for management purposes, but we incorporate it into each and every information collection renewal. No action was taken in response to this portion of their comment.
APLIC has gathered data from its membership to help the information collection adequately represent the power line Utility sector. The information in Table 1 is an averaged representative estimate from all types of power line companies, from rural cooperatives to investor-owned utilities. The data have been gathered across all
We gather information from the public on the burden imposed to apply for a permit and report the results of any issued permit. Because of the broad range of applicants, burden estimates vary widely. As such, the estimated reported burden does not represent any particular class of applicant, but is intended to capture an approximation of the burden in a general manner. It is not unusual for a specific type of applicant to report their burden as much higher than that estimated. No action was taken in response to this portion of their comment. Based on our experience administering this collection of information, we believe our estimates of time burden to be accurate for most respondents.
The processes through which the Service determines burden hours and cost estimates are not transparent, nor are the costs per hour realistic of the real-world costs for these types of actions. In addition to relying on public comment and aggregating those costs, working with major permit stakeholders (such as the electric utility industry and/or industry groups like APLIC) to solicit data would be helpful. Perhaps a more detailed report out for the multiple permittees would be more representative.
Throughout the process of securing renewed approval from the Office of Management and Budget to impose this information collection on the public, we seek input from those affected by the requirement. We use the information provided by the public to calculate and estimate burdens and make every effort to impose only the minimum amount of burden to accomplish the requirements to issue a permit and to assess the permit program's effectiveness in protecting migratory birds while at the same time assisting the public in conducting activities that affect populations of migratory birds. We welcome and appreciate the input from stakeholders to ensure we are not imposing an unrealistic burden to accomplish the goals of the permitting program and are always available to discuss the program with the public on ways to enhance its effectiveness and eliminate unnecessary burden. We will assess the application and reporting forms continually to ensure we only require information from the public that is absolutely necessary to run an efficient permitting program. Further, where necessary, we will continue to reach out to the affected public to enhance our reporting requirements and burden estimates.
The associated reports for the permits are the elements to which it takes the longest to respond. These reports are necessary in order for the permit program to accurately collect information on biological impacts and baseline levels. There may not be a way around the information collection, but the in-print acknowledgement and adjustment of burden hour estimates and costs would be helpful.
We recognize both the need for the reporting data, as well as the imposition of the burden on the public to report the results of their permit. We have begun an effort to modernize both the issuance of permits as well as the reporting. One such effort has been the change from paper reports for Special Purpose Utility permits to an Excel spreadsheet. The next step in the modernization of this report will be transition to an online Access database type of report. This effort should reduce the level of effort required by a permittee to report to us. As we move forward with this modernization effort, all reports will be updated to allow for online reporting, reducing or eliminating the need for a permittee to generate a paper report. For those permittees that do not have the necessary capabilities to access reports in an online manner, paper reports will remain in place for their convenience. We will continue to modernize the permitting program as resources allow, with the goal of reducing the application and reporting burden on the public as much as possible.
Comments received from the Energy and Wildlife Action Coalition (EWAC) and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) are essentially the same, so a combined response is provided.
Monitoring is among the most important and essential elements of the Service's eagle permitting program. The Service has acknowledged in its responses to comments on the 2016 Eagle Rule and elsewhere (
As noted in the response to comments on the final rule, the Service agrees that preconstruction data needed for electric utilities may differ from that for wind facilities. As we stated in the Service's comments on the final rule, we will take these differences into account as we develop guidance for eagle incidental take permits associated with electrical infrastructure. No action was taken in response to this comment.
The LAP is determined by extrapolating the average density of eagles in the pertinent Eagle Management Unit (EMU) to the LAP area, which is the project area plus an 86-mile (Bald Eagle) or 104-mile (Golden Eagle) buffer; these distances are based on natal dispersal distances of each eagle species. As an example, consider a 1-year Golden Eagle nest disturbance permit application in western Colorado, which is in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 6 under the current 2009 EMUs. The activity being undertaken could lead to the loss of 1 year of productivity, which has an expected value of 0.59 Golden Eagles removed from the population (the average 1-year productivity of an occupied Golden Eagle territory in BCR 16 at the 80th quantile, as described in the Status Report). This EMU has an estimated Golden Eagle population size of 3,585 at the 20th quantile, and the BCR covers 199,523 square miles, yielding an average Golden Eagle density of 0.018 Golden Eagles per square mile. The local area around a single point (the nest to be disturbed in this case) is a circle with a radius of 109 miles, which yields an LAP area of 37,330 square miles; thus, the estimated number of Golden Eagles in this LAP would be 671 individuals. The 5 percent LAP take limit for this permit under the current 2009 EMUs would be 34. The Service has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) application that queries spatial databases on existing eagle take permit limits and known unpermitted take within the LAP area, as well as for any other permitted projects whose LAP intersects and overlaps the LAP of the permit under consideration. If this query indicates existing cumulative permitted (
The Service believes the LAP analysis will likely reduce costs for permits. The Service expedites work with project proponents when they approach Service staff to help them understand the potential impacts of their project and related compensatory mitigation “burden.” First, the LAP cumulative effects analysis is a relatively simple exercise that is conducted by the Service, so no additional resources are required from the applicant to conduct the analysis other than what would be required otherwise. Second, in cases where the LAP analysis is conducted as analyzed in the PEIS for the Eagle Rule, further project-specific NEPA analyses of the cumulative effects of the activity on eagles will not be necessary when projected take is within LAP take thresholds, thereby reducing overall costs for prospective permittees. No action was taken in response to this comment.
The purpose of establishing such a fee structure is to provide capacity to process permits. OMB Circular No. A-25 requires Federal agencies to recoup the costs of “special services” that provide benefits to identifiable recipients. Permits are special services that authorize recipients to engage in activities that are otherwise prohibited. Our ability to provide effectively these special services is dependent upon either general appropriations, which are needed for other agency functions, or on user fees. Accordingly, the permit fees associated with eagles permits are intended to cover the costs the Service incurs processing the average permit.
As described in the fee section of the 1996 Eagle Rule, the application fee for long-term permits was derived from average costs associated with processing these complex permits. Monitoring and mitigation costs, however, are scaled to the project, and would be expected to be lower for smaller-scale projects. The Service intends to involve the public in developing additional guidance for projects that pose a low risk of eagle take, which may be particularly relevant for small projects. Finally, in response to comments on the proposed Eagle Rule, the final regulation adopted an $8,000 administration fee for long-term permits, rather than the proposed $15,000 fee. Initial permit application processing fees for long-term permits did not change from the current $36,000. If a permittee requests the programmatic permit to exceed 5 years, then there will be an $8,000 review fee every 5 years to recoup the Service's review costs. With a 5-year maximum permit duration, renewal of a permit would require a $36,000 permit application processing fee, so the $8,000 administration fee reduces costs to small businesses engaged in long-term activities. The Service acknowledges that some service sectors may have costs and hour estimates that differ from those estimated, and some projects may be inherently complex, but we stand by our original estimates, because the
It is not possible for the Service to survey all applicants for information on hourly rates paid for preparation and provision of the information required to make a decision on issuing an ETP and the authorizations in such a permit. Hourly rates for the burden estimate were selected from the average compensation tables published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and include estimates of benefits. No action was taken in response to this comment.
In the Eagle Rule PEIS, the Service programmatically analyzes eagle take within certain levels and the effects of complying with compensatory mitigation requirements to allow the Service to tier from the PEIS when conducting project-level NEPA analyses. The PEIS will cover the analysis of effects to eagles under NEPA if: (1) The project will not take eagles at a rate that exceeds (individually or cumulatively) the take limit of the EMU (unless take is offset); (2) the project does not result in Service authorized take (individually or cumulatively) in excess of 5 percent of the LAP; and (3) the applicant will mitigate using an approach the Service has already analyzed (
The Service received a large number of comments on the proposed Eagle Rule urging us to require third-party monitoring on long-term permits, and we agreed with these commenters. The final regulations require that for all permits with durations longer than 5 years, monitoring must be conducted by qualified independent entities that report directly to the Service. In the case of permits of 5-year duration or shorter, such third-party monitoring may be required on a case-by-case basis. We do not agree that there will be significant additional costs imposed by the requirement for third-party monitoring. Most companies already rely on and pay for consultants to conduct project monitoring, presumably because it is more cost-effective than supporting those activities in-house. No action was taken in response to this comment.
The final Eagle Rule regulations contain provisions that allow applicants to obtain coverage under all of the provisions of the prior regulations if they submit complete applications satisfying all of the requirements of those regulations within 6 months of the effective date of the final rule. However, we note that the Service guidance since 2011 has recommended 2 or more years of preconstruction eagle surveys, so planners of any prospective wind projects or other industry project conceived since then should have been aware of this. The regulations are not retroactive, and we are incorporating a 6-month “grandfathering” period after the effective date of the rule, wherein applicants (persons and entities who have already submitted applications) and project proponents who are in the process of developing permit applications) can choose whether to apply (or re-apply) to be permitted under all the provisions of the 2009 regulations or all the provisions of the final regulations.
The Service is developing policy on when waivers may be appropriate, and we will consider these comments along with the many others received on the proposed rule as part of that process. In the meantime, we recommend that project proponents work closely with Service staff to ascertain when waivers may be applicable. When eagle take has already occurred, projects will need to seek a civil settlement with the Service before a waiver, or a permit may be granted.
At this point, the only such standards were those included in the final Eagle Rule for estimating eagle take at wind facilities. The Service plans to develop standards for other industries in the immediate future, and will seek industry input in the development of those protocols.
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it will be done.
The authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703,
United States International Trade Commission.
June 2, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436.
(202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Stipulation and Order in
This proposed Stipulation and Order concerns a complaint filed by the United States against Defendants NSTAR Electric Co. d/b/a Eversource Energy, Harbor Electric Energy Co., and the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, for violations of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 403, and Section 404(s) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(s). The complaint seeks injunctive relief from, and civil penalties against, the Defendants for violating a permit issued in 1989 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the above statutes. The permit allowed a submarine cable to be installed across Boston Harbor, from an electrical substation in South Boston to Deer Island. The complaint alleges that the Defendants are the permittees or successors-in-interest to the permittees. Also, the complaint alleges that, within two federal channels, the Reserved Channel and the Main Ship Channel, the Defendants laid the cable at shallower depths than what the permit required. The proposed Stipulation and Order resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendants to lay a new cable from South Boston to Deer Island and then remove, or partly remove and partly abandon, the existing cable.
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this proposed Stipulation and Order for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Christine Wichers, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, One Courthouse Way, Suite 9200, Boston, MA 02210, and refer to
The proposed Stipulation and Order may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, One Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, MA 02210. In addition, the proposed Stipulation and Order may be examined electronically at
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 June 29, 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:
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) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Commodity Credit Corporation (DAA-0161-2017-0005, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master file of an electronic information system used to formulate the agency's budget.
2. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0017, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to social media applications, including web publishing, social networking, and media sharing.
3. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0018, 11 items, 11 temporary items). Records related to electronic information systems containing administrative and financial data regarding the Common Farm, Advisory Services, and Subsidy and Production programs, as well as aerial photography requirements, geographic information systems, cotton management, farm loans, service operations, and conservation.
4. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (DAA-0095-2017-0001, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records related to the National Environmental Policy Act, including project files, decision memos, mitigation action plans, cost analysis benefit reports, feasibility studies, and public and external agency correspondence. Proposed for permanent retention are environmental impact statements.
5. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary (DAA-0016-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to social media applications, including web publishing, social networking, and media sharing.
6. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system relating to medical voucher management.
7. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2016-0049, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains payment tracking data.
8. Department of Commerce, Office of the Inspector General (DAA-0040-2016-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Routine documents of audits conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. Included are quality reviews, inspection and program evaluation reports, and working papers.
9. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DAA-0434-2017-0007, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to the development of energy efficient vehicles including rule-making supporting files and fleet coverage investigations.
10. Department of Energy, Office of Health, Environment, Safety and Security (DAA-0434-2017-0003, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to tracking employee compensation claims and related supporting documents.
11. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2017-0017, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system used to process and adjudicate applications associated with naturalization and/or citizenship benefits.
12. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (DAA-0026-2016-0001, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Records related to funding of responses
13. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service (DAA-0087-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of an electronic system that automates routing and implementation of suggestions for improving agency operations.
14. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (DAA-0057-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Copies of records derived from technology satellites.
15. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide (DAA-0428-2017-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records related to contractual, environmental, and civil case files.
16. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (DAA-0557-2015-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system relating to receiving and responding to customer inquiries and self-service functions.
17. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency-wide (DAA-0255-2017-0007, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Routine photographs, still pictures, and moving imagery of training classes, meetings, and employee events and activities. Proposed for permanent retention are noteworthy still pictures and moving imagery of significant agency subjects and activities.
18. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency-wide (DAA-0255-2017-0009, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Routine documents of visitors who use the agency's health and first aid facilities.
19. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0431-2013-0001, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to hearings, including transcripts and supporting materials generated by the adjudicatory process.
20. Securities and Exchange Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0266-2017-0008, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Copies of employee newsletters published by divisions and offices within the agency.
21. Securities and Exchange Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0266-2017-0010, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of content on the agency's public Web site.
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 June 29, 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
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0001, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, including participant folders and reports.
2. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to the Emergency Forest Restoration Program, including producer folders and correspondence.
3. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0004, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records related to the Conservation Reserve, Grassroots Source Water Protection, Biofuels Infrastructure Partnership, and Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers programs. The records consist of producer folders and correspondence.
4. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (DAA-AFU-2017-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to temperature uniformity surveys and system accuracy tests for heat treatment facilities and metals processing shops.
5. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (DAA-0361-2017-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records accounting for small arms from receipt to destruction.
6. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2017-0005, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to routine internal audits of purchase card and check transactions.
7. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (DAA-0582-2017-0001, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records related to immigration fraud and abuse prevention, including complaints, investigative case files, tracking data, internal newsletters, and working files.
8. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (DAA-0582-2017-0002, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Records related to immigration attorney discipline cases and misconduct complaints.
9. Department of the Navy, Agency-wide (DAA-NU-2015-0013, 15 items, 11 temporary items). Aeronautical and astronautical records including routine correspondence, maintenance records, working papers, daily operations, and related matters. Proposed for permanent retention are records relating to policy, engineering drawings, technical reports and publications, and experimental aircraft flight summaries.
10. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Agency-wide (DAA-0180-2013-0005, 6 items, 3 temporary items). Reparations and enforcement cases involving dispute resolution between futures customers and futures trading professionals from 1989 to 2010 that were not appealed; the master file of an electronic information system used to track cases; and procedural letters and orders, notices of proceeding and appeals, exhibits, transcripts, and other working papers for reparations and enforcement cases starting in October 2010 and ongoing. Proposed for permanent retention are records of reparations and enforcement cases appealed to the Commission from 1989 to 2010; rulings, orders, complaints, sanction letters, and settlement documents for reparations and enforcement cases starting in 2010 and ongoing; and all reparations and enforcement cases from circa 1950 to 1988.
11. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, National Counterterrorism Center (N1-576-15-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Source data used to determine whether individuals are engaged in or suspected of involvement in terrorist activities.
12. Office of Government Ethics, Agency-wide (DAA-0522-2017-0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Master files of an electronic information system used for collecting and reviewing public financial disclosure reports, including periodic public reports of certain financial transactions, and supporting documentation.
May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23317).
11:45 a.m., Thursday, May 25, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on May 22, 2017 (82 FR 23317) of the regular meetings of the NCUA Board scheduled for May 25, 2017. Prior to the meeting, on May 24, 2017, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required the deletion of the fourth item on the closed agenda with less than seven days' notice to the public, and that no earlier notice of the deletion was possible.
4. Briefing on Supervisory Matter. Closed pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(i)(B), and (9)(ii).
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6564.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development, National Coordination Office, National Science Foundation.
Request for public comment.
With this notice, the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) requests comments from the public regarding the draft Federal Health Information Technology Research and Development Strategic Framework. The draft Strategic Framework is posted at:
The deadline for submissions under this request for comments (RFC) is June 28, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Submissions must not exceed 3 pages in 12 point or larger font, with a page number provided on each page. Responders should include the name of the person(s) or organization(s) filing the comment.
Responses to this RFC may be posted online at
In accordance with FAR 15.202(3), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responders are solely responsible for all expenses associated with responding to this RFC.
Beth Linas at
The rapid development of Health Information Technology (health IT) has made it possible to improve human health in ways that were previously unimaginable. For example, imagine a world in which every individual carries a medical identification bracelet or token that enables them to safely and securely share their up-to-date and accurate medical record information as they wish. This will allow people to avoid the danger of not being able to remember or communicate their important health information (
Health IT investments will do far more than facilitate ease of access for medical records. This paradigm shift within health and medicine will also allow people to unobtrusively monitor their health, receive the information they want when they need it, and have treatments targeted to their individual profile, prioritizing personal preferences and culture, including those in rural or resource-limited environments. Improvements in health IT will also influence how we prevent, diagnose, and treat disease, as well as how we shift the focus to wellness. These changes should have a cascading effect: People will have increased access to health services and be healthier and more productive. Because of the efficiencies afforded by advanced health IT, this enhanced quality will be realized while reducing cost and adapting to the coming changes in the population and workforce.
This R&D Framework lays out a clear, comprehensive, structured description of the current state of a field of research, organized and explained in a way that facilitates understanding of the field by all stakeholders, and that supports R&D coordination and cooperation by participating Federal agencies. This health IT R&D Strategic Framework will improve medical, functional, and societal health outcomes through R&D in the use of data and IT for advanced health IT applications. Health IT R&D includes, but is not limited to, the use of digital information, data, and technology across the human lifespan in the areas of screening, diagnosis, treatment and surveillance; preventable medical error reduction; disease prevention; self-management of health behavior and wellness; healthcare; and disaster and emergency response that support improved individual and community health outcomes. It does not include research in basic biological sciences (
This Strategic Framework is designed to provide an overview of the salient issues, needs and ongoing federal investments in health IT R&D. This Framework aligns with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC's) Federal Health IT Strategic Plan 2015-2020 by focusing on Federal R&D investments. This Framework summarizes the motivators and challenges, needs, mechanisms of collaboration, and the ongoing research, in order to identify gaps and allow for enhanced coordination and planning of Federal agency health IT R&D.
The Central Goals that motivate this strategy are to:
• Understand motivators and challenges in health IT R&D;
• Accelerate health IT innovation and infrastructure development;
• Facilitate cross-sector collaboration and bridge existing silos;
• Boost innovation and promote U.S. global leadership; and
• Focus on people-centered solutions that support safety and effectiveness and enhance economic competitiveness.
A key objective of this plan is to identify priorities for federally funded research and development (R&D) as well as capacity-building to help transform health IT R&D and improve our Country's health. To do so, the Strategic Priorities identified herein are to:
• Accelerate fundamental R&D for health IT;
• Facilitate accurate, secure and resilient health IT infrastructure, systems, and services;
• Foster health IT R&D innovation through data and knowledge sharing, best practices, and collaboration; and
• Enable evaluation of progress and long-term growth of health IT.
This plan envisions Federal agencies working together and engaging with academia, industry, civil society, and other key stakeholders. The aim is to accelerate the development and implementation of new discoveries and innovations that in turn enable health IT R&D to address our Country's most important challenges. Therefore, the Collaboration Opportunities in Health IT R&D identified in this Strategic Framework include, through the health IT R&D Working Group, promoting interagency coordination and collaboration; and, engaging academic, industry and medical communities to collect feedback on and enable continued refinement of this Strategic Framework and future efforts.
The Health IT Working Group invites comments on the draft strategic framework. In particular, commenters should consider the following questions as they develop their responses:
• Are the central motivations appropriate and/or are there other issues that should be considered?
• Are the strategic needs appropriate and/or are there other priorities that should be considered?
• Are the collaboration opportunities identified in the draft framework appropriate and/or are there others that should be considered?
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed amendment would change the Emergency Action Level (EAL) HU1.5.
Submit comments by June 29, 2017. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by July 31, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0128 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Booma Venkataraman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2934; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0128 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0128 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 NRC is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located in Oswego, New York.
The proposed amendment would change the EAL HU1.5, pursuant to section 50.54(q) of title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of Exelon's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the proposed changes to the EAL HU1.5 reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, “Planning Basis,” of NUREG-0654, Revision 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants”:
. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . . .
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All Exelon ERO functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by the proposed changes. The applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E will continue to be met.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 31, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated May 19, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17139C739).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Extension of comment period.
On April 11, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited comments on its patient release program. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on June 12, 2017. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.
The due date of comments requested in the document published on April 11, 2017 (82 FR 17465), is extended. Comments should be filed no later than June 27, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Donna-Beth Howe, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7848; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0094 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0094 in your 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
On April 11, 2017, the NRC solicited comments on its patient release program. The purpose of requesting information from the general public on its patient release program was to receive input from the public on whether additional or alternate criteria are needed and whether to clarify NRC's current patient release criteria. The information collected will be used to determine whether significant regulatory changes to NRC's patient release program are warranted. The public comment period was originally scheduled to close on June 12, 2017. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period on this document until June 27, 2017, to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold a meeting on June 5, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The meeting will be open to public attendance with the exception of portions that may be closed to protect information that is proprietary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4). The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will review the APR1400 design control document—Chapter 3, “Design of Structures, Systems, Components, and Equipment;” and associated safety evaluation report. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email:
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at
If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment application; opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 and NPF-69, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively. The proposed amendments would change the Emergency Action Level (EAL) HU1.5.
Submit comments by June 29, 2017. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by July 31, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0129 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Michael L. Marshall, Jr., Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2871; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0129 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0129 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 considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-63 andNPF-69, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, for operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Scriba, New York.
The proposed amendment would change the EAL HU1.5, pursuant to section 50.54(q) title 10 of the
Before any issuance of the proposed license amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not reduce the capability to meet the emergency planning requirements established in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes do not reduce the functionality, performance, or capability of Exelon's ERO [emergency response organization] to respond in mitigating the consequences of any design basis accident.
The probability of a reactor accident requiring implementation of Emergency Plan EALs has no relevance in determining whether the proposed changes to the EAL HU1.5 reduce the effectiveness of the Emergency Plans. As discussed in Section D, “Planning Basis,” of NUREG-0654, Revision 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants”:
. . . The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs). No single specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in nature and degree. Further, the range of possible selection for a planning basis is very large, starting with a zero point of requiring no planning at all because significant offsite radiological accident consequences are unlikely to occur, to planning for the worst possible accident, regardless of its extremely low likelihood. . . .
Therefore, Exelon did not consider the risk insights regarding any specific accident initiation or progression in evaluating the proposed changes.
The proposed changes do not involve any physical changes to plant equipment or systems, nor do they alter the assumptions of any accident analyses. The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor do they alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration or the manner in which the plants are operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the ability of Structures, Systems, or Components (SSCs) to perform their intended safety functions in mitigating the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not involve any physical changes to plant systems or equipment. The proposed changes do not involve the addition of any new plant equipment. The proposed changes will not alter the design configuration, or method of operation of plant equipment beyond its normal functional capabilities. All Exelon ERO functions will continue to be performed as required. The proposed changes do not create any new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those that have been previously evaluated
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes to EAL HU1.5 do not alter or exceed a design basis or safety limit. There is no change being made to safety analysis assumptions, safety limits, or limiting safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety as a result of the proposed changes. There are no changes to setpoints or environmental conditions of any SSC or the manner in which any SSC is operated. Margins of safety are unaffected by
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve any reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day notice period if the Commission concludes the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at
As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 31, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at
Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated May 19, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17139C739).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “10 CFR part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material.”
Submit comments by June 29, 2017.
Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB clearance number 3150-0010, NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email:
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0013 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
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 OMB, 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.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “10 CFR part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Opening Process for foreign currency options and also amend a reference to All-or-None Orders.
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, entitled “Opening,” to: (i) Conform certain rule text to that of Nasdaq ISE, LLC; (ii) amend the Opening Process for foreign currency options; and (iii) remove a specific rule text reference in Rule 701 related to All-or-None Orders.
ISE recently filed to adopt a new Opening Process.
GEMX Rule 701 provides that Market Maker Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps received starting at 9:25 a.m. Eastern Time, or 7:25 a.m. Eastern Time for U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options, will be included in the Opening Process. Orders entered at any time before an option series opens are included in the Opening Process. The current Opening Process rule states that the submission of Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps for U.S. dollar-settled foreign currency options may begin at 7:25 a.m. Eastern Time to tie the option Opening Process to quoting in the underlying security
The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 701 to remove a specific reference to the manner in which All-or-None Orders are treated in the Opening Process. The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to amend All-or-None Orders.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that conforming the GEMX rule to the ISE rule will avoid confusion for market participants. The Opening Process is the same on these two markets. By conforming the rule text of these two rules will make clear that there is no difference in the operation of these two Opening Processes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act in that it will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to initiate the Opening Process for foreign currency options at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and accept for the Opening Process the Market Maker Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps starting at 9:25 a.m. Eastern Time for foreign currency options, similar to the manner in which other options trade today. Today, on NASDAQ PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”), foreign currency options trade similar to other options.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to remove an unnecessary and confusing reference to Rule 701 in connection with All-or-None Orders, since these orders immediately trade or cancel. The Exchange originally distinguished the manner in which All-or-None Orders would trade in the Opening Process because this order type traded differently at that time as compared to other order types. That distinction has become unnecessary because All-or-None Orders trade the same as other Immediate or Cancel Orders. By updating the rule to remove an unnecessary distinction will protect investors and the public interest by clarifying the rule.
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 Exchange believes that adding additional detail to Rule 701 will provide market participants with more information concerning the Opening Process. The proposal does not change the intense competition that exists among the options markets for options business including with respect to transacting foreign currency options. In addition, all market participants submitting All-or-None Orders in the Opening Process will receive similar treatment with respect to those orders.
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 its Schedule of Fees to decrease rebates for members that participate in the Member Order Routing Program.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange operates the Member Order Routing Program (“MORP”),
On the Schedule of Fees, the requirement to designate which sessions are MORP eligible ends in a period. As a non-substantive conforming change, the Exchange proposes to change this to a semi-colon.
Currently, an EAM that is MORP eligible receives a rebate for all unsolicited Crossing Orders of $0.065 per originating contract side, provided that the member executes a minimum average daily volume (“ADV”) in unsolicited Crossing Orders of at least 30,000 originating contract sides though their MORP designated sessions. This rebate is increased to $0.07 per originating contract side, provided that the member executes a higher ADV in unsolicited Crossing Orders of 100,000 originating contract sides.
In addition, any EAM that qualifies for the MORP rebate by executing an ADV of 30,000 originating contract sides or more on their MORP designated sessions is also eligible for increased Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebates
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed decreases to MORP rebates, including the rebate for unsolicited Crossing Orders, and the Facilitation and Solicitation break-up rebate, are reasonable and equitable because the proposed rebates are set at amounts previously offered and will continue to be attractive to members that participate in the program.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are not unfairly discriminatory as they apply to all EAMs that meet the program requirements and opt in to the program. Any EAM that participates in the program will be provided the rebates on an equal and non-discriminatory basis based on the order flow executed on the Exchange. While MORP is targeted towards unsolicited Crossing Order flow, the Exchange offers other incentive programs to promote and encourage growth in other business areas, including, for example, rebates for Market Makers that routinely quote at the national best bid or offer,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
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.
On March 24, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Exchange” or “Nasdaq”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares of the Fund under Nasdaq Rule 5735, which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares on the Exchange. The Fund will be an actively-managed exchange-traded fund (“ETF”). The Trust, which was established as a Massachusetts business trust on January 9, 2008 and is registered with the Commission as an investment company, has filed with the Commission a registration statement on Form N-1A (“Registration Statement”).
The Exchange has made the following representations and statements in describing the Fund and its investment strategies, including the Fund's portfolio holdings and investment restrictions.
According to the Exchange, the primary investment objective of the Fund will be to seek to provide current income that is exempt from regular federal income taxes and California income taxes, and its secondary objective will be long-term capital appreciation. Under normal market conditions,
The types of Municipal Securities in which the Fund may invest include municipal lease obligations (and certificates of participation in such obligations), municipal general obligation bonds, municipal revenue bonds, municipal notes, municipal cash equivalents, private activity bonds (including, without limitation, industrial development bonds), and pre-refunded
The Fund may invest in Municipal Securities of any maturity. However, under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the weighted average maturity of the Fund will be less than or equal to 14 years.
Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund will invest at least 50% of its net assets in “investment grade Municipal Securities,” which are Municipal Securities that are, at the time of investment, rated investment grade (
Certain representations included in this filing, described below, will meet or exceed similar requirements set forth in the generic listing standards for actively-managed ETFs (“Generic Listing Standards”). It is not anticipated that the Fund will meet the requirement that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.
Therefore, under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, at least 40% (based on dollar amount invested) of the Municipal Securities in which the Fund invests
Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, no component fixed income security (excluding the U.S. government securities described in “Other Investments” below) will represent more than 15% of the Fund's net assets, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed income securities in the Fund's portfolio (excluding U.S. government securities) will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 25% of the Fund's net assets.
The Fund may invest up to an aggregate of 20% of its net assets in the securities and other instruments (including cash) described in this section.
The Fund may invest in the short-term debt instruments described below, money market funds and other cash equivalents, and taxable municipal securities and other municipal securities that are not Municipal Securities, or it may hold cash.
Short-term debt instruments, which do not include Municipal Securities, are issued by issuers having a long-term debt rating of at least A−/A3 (as applicable) by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody's”) or Fitch Ratings (“Fitch”) and have a maturity of one year or less. The Fund may invest in the following short-term debt instruments: (1) Fixed rate and floating rate U.S. government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. government agencies or instrumentalities; (2) certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association; (3) bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions; (4) repurchase agreements,
The Fund may (i) invest in the securities of other investment companies registered under the 1940 Act, including money market funds, ETFs,
The Fund may (i) invest in exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury securities, exchange-listed options on U.S. Treasury futures contracts, and exchange-listed U.S. Treasury futures contracts (collectively, “Listed Derivatives”) and (ii) acquire short positions in the Listed Derivatives. Transactions in the Listed Derivatives may allow the Fund to obtain net long
The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser.
The Fund may not invest 25% or more of the value of its total assets in securities of issuers in any one industry. This restriction does not apply to (a) municipal securities issued by governments or political subdivisions of governments, (b) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government, its agencies or instrumentalities, or (c) securities of other investment companies. In addition, under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities will provide exposure (based on dollar amount invested) to at least 10 different industries
After careful review, the Commission finds that the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission also finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,
The Intraday Indicative Value, available on the NASDAQ OMX Information LLC proprietary index data
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. The Fund's disclosure of derivative positions in the Disclosed Portfolio will include sufficient information for market participants to use to value these positions intraday. Additionally, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund (including closed-end funds, ETFs, and Listed Derivatives) with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”),
The Commission further believes that the proposal to list and trade the Shares is reasonably designed to promote fair disclosure of information that may be necessary to price the Shares appropriately and to prevent trading when a reasonable degree of transparency cannot be assured. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily, and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Nasdaq will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12). In addition, trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which trading is not occurring in the securities and/or the other assets constituting the Disclosed Portfolio of the Fund; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 5735(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Fund may be halted.
The Exchange states that it has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees. Further, the Commission notes that the Reporting Authority
The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances, administered by both the Exchange and FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations
The Exchange represents that the Shares are deemed to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made representations, including the following:
(1) The Shares will be subject to Rule 5735, which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Fund Shares.
(2) The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions.
(3) FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund (including closed-end funds, ETFs, and Listed Derivatives) with other markets and other entities that are members of ISG, and FINRA may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and such exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the exchange-listed securities and instruments held by the Fund from markets and other entities that are members of ISG, which includes securities and futures exchanges, or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. Moreover, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, will be able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by the Fund reported to FINRA's TRACE, and the MSRB's EMMA will be a source of price information for Municipal Securities and taxable and other municipal securities.
(4) Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (a) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Creation Units (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (b) Nasdaq Rule 2111A, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (c) how information regarding the Intraday Indicative Value and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (d) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Pre-Market and Post-Market Sessions when an updated Intraday Indicative Value will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (e) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (f) trading information.
(5) For initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act.
(6) Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that are not Territorial Obligations.
(7) Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund will invest at least 50% of its net assets in investment grade Municipal Securities, and the Fund will invest no more than 50% of its net assets in Municipal Securities that are, at the time of investment, not investment grade Municipal Securities.
(8) The Fund may not invest more than 10% of its net assets in Distressed Municipal Securities.
(9) To the extent the Fund invests in Municipal Securities that are mortgage-backed or asset-backed securities, such investments will not account, in the aggregate, for more than 20% of the weight of the fixed income portion of the Fund's portfolio.
(10) At least 40% (based on dollar amount invested) of the Municipal Securities in which the Fund invests will be issued by issuers with total outstanding debt issuances that, in the aggregate, have a minimum amount of municipal debt outstanding at the time of purchase of $50 million or more.
(11) On both an initial and continuing basis, no more than 20% of the assets in the Fund's portfolio will be invested in the OTC Derivatives and, for purposes of calculating this limitation, the Fund's investment in the OTC Derivatives will be calculated as the aggregate gross notional value of the OTC Derivatives. The Fund will only enter into transactions in OTC Derivatives with counterparties that the Adviser reasonably believes are capable of performing under the applicable contract or agreement.
(12) Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities will provide exposure (based on dollar amount invested) to at least 10 different industries (with no more than 25% of the value of the Fund's net assets comprised of Municipal Securities that provide exposure to any single industry).
(13) ETFs included in the Fund will be listed and traded in the U.S. on one or more registered exchanges. While the Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, the Fund will not invest in leveraged or inverse leveraged (
(14) Under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows: No component fixed-income security (excluding the U.S. government securities described in “Other Investments”) will represent more than 15% of the Fund's net assets, and the five most heavily weighted component fixed income securities in the Fund's portfolio (excluding U.S. government securities) will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 25% of the Fund's net assets. Further, under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, the Fund's portfolio of Municipal Securities will include securities from a minimum of 30 non-affiliated issuers. Moreover, under normal market conditions, except for the initial invest-up period and periods of high cash inflows or outflows, component securities that in the aggregate account for at least 90% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio of Municipal Securities will be exempted securities as defined in Section 3(a)(12) of the Act.
(15) The Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment), including Rule 144A securities deemed illiquid by the Adviser. The Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if,
(16) The Fund's investments in derivative instruments will be consistent with the Fund's investment objectives and the 1940 Act and will not be used to seek to achieve a multiple or inverse multiple of the Fund's broad-based securities market index (as defined in Form N-1A).
(17) A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange.
The Exchange represents that all statements and representations made in the filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference assets, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, (c) dissemination and availability of the reference asset or intraday indicative values, or (d) the applicability of Exchange listing rules shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange. In addition, the issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements.
This order is based on all of the Exchange's representations, including those set forth above and in Amendments No. 1 and 2. The Commission notes that the Fund and the Shares must comply with the requirements of Nasdaq Rule 5735 for the Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
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 the trading hours and Opening Process of Foreign Currency Index options and also amend a reference to All-or-None Orders.
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: (i) The trading hours, including during the Opening Process, of Foreign Currency Index options; and (ii) a specific rule text reference in Rule 701 related to All-or-None Orders.
ISE Rule 2008, “Trading Sessions,” among other things, governs transactions in Foreign Currency Index options. The rule provides that such product may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time and 4:15 p.m. Eastern Time. ISE Rule 2210, “Trading Sessions,” notes that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this Rule [2210] or under unusual conditions as may be determined by an Exchange official or his designee, transactions in foreign currency options may be effected on the Exchange between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Eastern time, except on the last day of trading during expiration week, in which case trading shall cease at 12.00 p.m. Eastern time.”
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rules 2008 and 2010 so that Foreign Currency Index options will start trading at 9:30 AM Eastern Time instead of 7:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The purpose of this rule change is to conform the start time for the trading of Foreign Currency Options to that of other products.
Likewise, ISE Rule 701, “Opening,” which was recently approved,
The Exchange also proposes to amend ISE Rule 701 to remove a specific reference to the manner in which All-or-None Orders will be treated in the Opening Process. The Exchange recently filed a proposed rule change to amend All-or-None Orders.
Both SR-ISE-2017-02 and SR-ISE-2017-03 will be implemented in Q2 2017 in connection with a system migration to INET. The migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis, and the Exchange will issue an alert to Members to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates. The Exchange proposes these amendments to be operative on the same dates as symbols migrate to INET.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act in that it will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to initiate the Opening Process for foreign currency options at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time and accept Market Maker Valid Width Quotes and Opening Sweeps at 9:25 a.m. Eastern Time for foreign currency options similar to the manner in which other options trade today. Today, on NASDAQ PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”), foreign currency options trade similar to other options.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to remove an unnecessary and confusing reference to Rule 701 in connection with All-or-None Orders, since these orders will now immediately trade or cancel. The Exchange originally made clear the manner in which All-or-None Orders would trade in the Opening Process because this order type trades differently as compared to other order types. That distinction has become unnecessary because All-or-None Orders trade the same as other Immediate or Cancel Orders. By updating the rule to remove an unnecessary distinction will protect investors and the public interest by clarifying the rule.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any undue 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 with respect to transacting foreign currency options. In addition, all market participants submitting All-or-None Orders in the Opening Process will receive similar treatment with respect to those orders.
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
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 17, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes, in connection with its name change to NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), to rebrand the Exchange's facility for trading options (“Options Market”), from “NYSE Amex Options” to “NYSE American Options” and to amend the rules of the Exchange, the NYSE MKT Equities Price List (“Price List”), the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”), and the NYSE Amex Options Proprietary Market Data Fees (“Options Market Data Fees”) to reflect that rebranding. The Exchange also proposes to delete obsolete references in the rules and the NYSE MKT LLC Company Guide (“Company Guide”). The proposed 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.
NYSE MKT proposes, in connection with its name change to NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”),
The Exchange also proposes to delete obsolete references to a former name from the rules and the Company Guide.
Option contracts may be approved for listing and trading on the Exchange's Options Market, which is referred to as “NYSE Amex Options.”
The proposed rule changes would become operative upon the effectiveness of the NYSE MKT name change to NYSE American, which is expected to be no later than July 30, 2017.
The Exchange notes that the name change originally was expected to become effective no later than June 30, 2017.
In connection with the rebranding of the Options Market, the Exchange proposes to amend the rules as described below:
• The Exchange proposes to change the name of its trading permit from “Amex Trading Permit” to “American Trading Permit.” Consistent with that change, it proposes to change the terms “Amex Trading Permits” and “Amex Trading Permit Holder” to “American Trading Permits” and “American Trading Permit Holder,” respectively. To implement the change, it proposes to replace “Amex” with “American” in Rule 350 (Ownership Requirements); Rule 353 (Amex Trading Permit Requirements); Rule 353A (Revocable Privilege; Termination of an Amex Trading Permit); Rule 358 (Processing Fees and Other Charges Associated with Amex Trading Permit); Rule 358A (Special Charge and Charge Upon Options Transactions); Rule 359 (Application and Termination Forms); Rule 359B (Limited Transferability); and, where applicable, in the respective title of the aforementioned rules.
• The Exchange proposes to change the term “NYSE Amex Options Trading Floor” to “NYSE American Options Trading Floor”. To implement the change, it proposes to replace “Amex” with “American” in Rule 6A—Equities (`Trading Floor') and Rule 36—Equities (Communications between Exchange and Members' Offices), Supplementary Material .21, .23, and .70.
• In Rule 70—Equities (Execution of Floor Broker Interest), Supplementary Material .40, the Exchange proposes to replace “Amex” with “American” in the term “NYSE Amex option.”
• In Rule 900.2NY (Definitions), the Exchange proposes to amend “NYSE Amex Options” to the term “NYSE American Options” and “Amex Trading Permit” to the term “American Trading Permit”. To implement the change, the Exchange proposes to replace “Amex” with “American” throughout the rule.
• In Rule 902NY (Admission and Conduct on the Options Trading Floor), the Exchange proposes to replace “Amex” with “American” in the terms “Officer of NYSE Amex Options”, “NYSE Amex Options automated trading system”, and “Reserve Floor Market Maker Amex Trading Permit.”
• In Rule 1000—AEMI (Portfolio Depository Receipts), Commentary .03 and .06, and Rule 1000A-AEMI (Index Fund Shares), Commentary .02 and .05, the Exchange proposes to delete “Amex” from the term “Amex Company Guide”, consistent with the definition of “Company Guide” in the Exchange's rules.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the following documents as described below:
•
•
•
The Exchange also proposes to clean up obsolete references to the Exchange's former name, Amex, as follows:
• When the Exchange's name was changed from NYSE Amex LLC to NYSE MKT LLC, it changed its rule naming convention by replacing “—NYSE Amex Equities” with “—Equities”.
• In Sec.137 (Depository Eligibility) of the Company Guide, the Exchange proposes to replace “Amex Rule 777” with “Rule 777.”
None of the foregoing changes are substantive.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The proposed rule change is a non-substantive change and does not impact the governance or ownership of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to continue to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance with the provisions of the Exchange Act by its members and persons associated with its members, because ensuring that the Exchange's rules, Price List, Fee Schedule, and Options Market Data Fees accurately reflect the name of the Options Market would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange by
For similar reasons, the Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring that market participants can more easily navigate, understand and comply with the Exchange's rules, Price List, Fee Schedule, and Options Market Data Fees. The Exchange believes that, by ensuring that such documents and rulebook accurately reflect the name of the Options Market, which aligns with the name of the Exchange, the proposed rule change would reduce potential investor or market participant confusion.
The Exchange believes that eliminating obsolete references to the Exchange's previous name would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion. Removing such obsolete references will also further the goal of transparency and add clarity to the Exchange's rules and Company Guide.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with updating the Exchange's rules, Company Guide, Price List, Fee Schedule, and Options Market Data Fees to reflect the new name of the Exchange and the subsequent related rebranding of its options business.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to 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 an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of OKLAHOMA dated05/22/2017.
Effective Date: 05/22/2017.
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 15132 B and for economic injury is 15133 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are OKLAHOMA.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collections below are pending at SSA. SSA will submit them to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than July 31, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
II. SSA submitted the information collection below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding the information collection would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 29, 2017. Individuals can obtain copies of the OMB clearance package by writing to
Social Security Administration.
Notice of rescission of Social Security Ruling, 91-3p.
In accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), the Acting Commissioner of Social Security gives notice of the rescission of Social Security Ruling (SSR) 91-3p.
Chris Grovich, Office of Disability Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 966-1696 or TTY 410-966-5609, for information about this notice. For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213 or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our Internet site, Social Security Online, at
Through SSRs, we make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits programs. We may base SSRs on determinations or decisions made at all levels of administrative adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of General Counsel, or other interpretations of the law and regulations.
Widows, widowers, and surviving divorced spouses (hereinafter referred to as widows) who are disabled and between age 50 and 60 may be entitled to disability insurance benefits based on a deceased spouse's earnings record. We sometimes refer to these benefits as disabled widows' benefits or widows' disability benefits. Before Congress enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990,
Between 1989 and 1991, several United States Courts of Appeals found that the pre-OBRA standard we used was underinclusive in its adjudicatory criteria, and that the Act required consideration of functional limitations in determining entitlement to disabled widow's benefits. As a result of those court decisions, we revaluated our interpretation of the pre-OBRA standard and published SSR 91-3p, which directed adjudicators to apply the interpretation of the pre-OBRA standard set out in the SSR when determining disability for disabled widows' benefits payable for months prior to January 1991.
By statute, entitlement to disabled widows' benefits cannot be established more than 12 months prior to the filing of an application for such benefits.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. The collection of information is for the purpose of obtaining essential information concerning the applicant's professional and personal qualifications. The FAA uses the information provided to screen and select designees who act as representatives of the FAA Administrator in performing various certification and examination functions under Title VI of Federal Aviation Act.
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for John F. Kennedy International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act and 14 CFR part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is May 19, 2017.
Eastern Region Airports Division (AEA-600), Andrew Brooks, Environmental Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, AEA-600, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434, Telephone: (718) 553-3330.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for John F. Kennedy International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of 14 CFR part 150, effective January 13, 2004. Under 49 U.S.C. Section 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations during a forecast period that is at least five (5) years in the future, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The documentation that constitutes the “Noise Exposure Maps” (NEM) as defined in Section 150.7 of Part 150 includes a 2016 Base Year NEM, Figure 5-1, and a 2021 Future Year NEM, Figure 5-2, located in Chapter 5 of the NEM Report. Details of the NEM contours are provided by Runway end in Figures 5-3 through 5-6 of Chapter 5. The figures contained within Chapter 5 are scaled to fit within the report context; however, the official, to scale, 2016 Base Year NEM and 2021 Future Year NEM are both located in Appendix M of the official NEM Report submittal. The Noise Exposure Maps contain current and forecast information including the depiction of the airport and its boundaries, the runway configurations, land uses such as single and two-family residential; multi-family residential; mixed residential and commercial; commercial and office; industrial and manufacturing; transportation, parking and utilities; public facilities and institutions; unclassified; open space, cemetaries, and outdoor recreation; vacant land; places of worship; schools; historic structures; hospitals; and day care/assisted living facilities and those areas within the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65, 70 and 75 noise contours. Estimates for the area within these contours for the 2016 Base Year and 2021 Future Year are shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-4 in Chapter 5 of the NEM Report respectively. Estimates of the residential population within the 2016 Base Year and 2021 Future Year noise contours are also shown in Table 5-1 and Table 5-4 in Chapter 5 of the NEM Report respectively. Figure 4-12, in Chapter 4, displays the location of noise monitoring sites. Flight tracks are found in Figures 4-2 through 4-5 of Chapter 4 and detailed in Appedices E and M. The type and frequency of aircraft operations (including nighttime operations) are found in Chapter 4, Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
As discussed in Chapter 6 of the NEM Report, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey provided the general public the opportunity to review and comment on the NEMs. This public comment period opened on October 26, 2016 and closed on November 28, 2016. Public workshops for the Draft NEMs were held on November 2 and November 3, 2016. All comments received during the public comment
The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on May 19, 2017.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of Section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning authorities with which consultation is required under Section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
Copies of the full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. A final rule published on January 16, 2007 codified previous practices that permitted certificated air carriers to operate two-engine airplanes over long-range routes. The FAA uses this information collection to ensure that aircraft for long range flights are equipped to minimize diversions, to preclude and prevent diversions in remote areas, and to ensure that all personnel are trained to minimize any adverse impacts of a diversion.
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. 14 CFR part 125 prescribes requirements for issuing operating certificates and for appropriate operating rules. In addition to the statutory basis, the collection of this information is necessary to issue, reissue, or amend applicant's operating certificates and operations specifications.
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before June 19, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0445 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Renton, Washington.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of public teleconference.
This notice announces a public teleconference of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport airplane and engine (TAE) issues.
The teleconference is scheduled for Thursday, July 06, 2017, starting at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
This is a public teleconference.
Nikeita Johnson, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-024, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-4977, Fax (202) 267-5075, or email at
Pursuant to § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. III), notice is given of an ARAC teleconference to be held July 06, 2017.
The agenda for the teleconference is as follows:
Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the availability of teleconference lines. Participation will be by teleconference only. Please confirm your participation with the person listed in the
To participate, please contact the person listed in the
The public must make arrangements by June 29, 2017, to present oral statements at the teleconference. Copies of the documents to be presented to ARAC may be made available by contacting the person listed in the
If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved information collection. Flight plan information is used to govern the flight of aircraft for the protection and identification of aircraft and property and persons on the ground.
Written comments should be submitted by June 29, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
Ronda Thompson by email at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Please submit comments by July 31, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 2017-0020 by any of the following methods:
Victoria Peters, 720-963-3522, or Andy Byra, 720-963-3550, Office of Innovative Program Delivery, Center for Local-Aid Support, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
A needs assessment survey will help inform and identify what areas of knowledge that training needs to accomplish within the local agency community. The results of the assessment will help direct resources to the areas of greatest demand. The survey will be conducted once over a 30 day period. These are surveys to collect training related information and there are no sensitive or personal questions, therefore confidentiality is not guaranteed or necessary.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of Emergency Approval Request.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection, which is summarized below under
Jimmy Chu, 202-366-3379 or Robert Rupert, 202-366-2194, Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan board of directors meeting.
The meeting will be held on June 7, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 Noon, Mountain Daylight Time.
The meetings will be open to the public at the Drury Plaza Hotel, 828 Paseo de Peralta, Santa Fe, NM 87501, and via conference call. Those not attending the meeting in person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to listen and participate in the meeting.
Open to the public.
The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, this document provides notice that FRA is submitting an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information on railroads' implementation of positive train control (PTC) systems on a quarterly form entitled the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165). On June 20, 2016, following the required notice and comment period, including a public meeting with industry stakeholders, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165) for a period of 12 months, expiring June 30, 2017. After OMB's initial approval, FRA made three minor modifications to Form FRA F 6180.165, as described below. FRA sought public comment on the proposed revisions during a period of 60 days, ending May 15, 2017. FRA requests regular processing and OMB authorization for 3 years to collect the information on revised Form FRA F 6180.165, as identified below, beginning 30 days after publication of this notice.
Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Railroad Safety, Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-6132). These telephone numbers are not toll-free. Comments or questions about any aspect of this ICR should be directed to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: FRA OMB Desk Officer.
On March 14, 2017, FRA published a notice in the
The Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act) requires FRA to conduct compliance reviews at least annually to ensure each railroad subject to the statutory mandate to implement a positive train control (PTC) system is complying with its Revised PTC Implementation Plan (PTCIP). 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2). To enable FRA to meet this statutory mandate, the PTCEI Act requires railroads to provide information to FRA that FRA determines is necessary to adequately conduct such compliance reviews. 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
Under its statutory and regulatory investigative authorities, FRA currently requires, and seeks to continue requiring, each railroad subject to the PTC system mandate to submit Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) on its PTC system implementation progress.
FRA has determined that quarterly reporting is necessary for FRA to effectively monitor industry's implementation of PTC systems and to meet the statutory mandate to conduct compliance reviews
Congress made it clear in the PTCEI Act and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act that enforcement is FRA's main oversight tool for ensuring each railroad subject to the PTC system statutory mandate implements a PTC system consistent with its Revised PTCIP and by the new statutory deadline. 49 U.S.C. 20157(e)(1)-(4). FRA needs the quarterly reports to conduct the compliance reviews the PTCEI Act mandates and, when necessary, to initiate well-supported enforcement action against a railroad. In the PTCEI Act, Congress required each railroad to provide detailed implementation information in its Revised PTCIP, including milestones for spectrum acquisition, employee training, and hardware installation, with totals separated by each major hardware category. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(A)(iii). The PTCEI Act requires each railroad to comply with its Revised PTCIP, including its milestones, and FRA is authorized to assess a civil penalty for any failure to meet those milestones. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(2)(D), (e)(2), 49 CFR 1.89.
By statute, railroads are required to provide FRA with any information FRA deems necessary to adequately conduct its compliance reviews.
On June 20, 2016, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) for a period of one year, expiring on June 30, 2017. The current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form, as approved through June 30, 2017, can be accessed and downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at:
As FRA described in its March 14, 2017, notice, FRA proposes three minor modifications to the Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165, OMB Control No. 2130-0553; OMB Approval Expires June 30, 2017).
First, FRA proposes removing a now inapplicable instruction from page 1 of the quarterly form, which stated,
* Please note that FRA did not require a Q1 progress report to be submitted in April 2016. For 2016, the Q1 and Q2 reports are both due in the same form on July 31, 2016.
In addition, FRA proposes making the following two changes to Section 1 of the form (Summary Section) to clarify the section and respond to a Congressional request that FRA collect certain additional information:
(i) To ensure clarity and consistent interpretations by respondents, FRA proposes adding instructions to the existing Summary Section row entitled, “Route Miles in Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration,” as a footnote. The current Summary Section in the Quarterly PTC Progress Report requires railroads to provide the following information:
In the Summary Section of the Quarterly PTC Progress Reports railroads have submitted to date, some railroads have improperly listed the same number of miles in the “Route Miles in Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration” and “Route Miles in PTC Operation” fields, under the heading “Cumulative Quantity Completed To Date.” This makes it impossible for FRA to know if the railroad is still conducting PTC testing (
Enter the cumulative number of route miles where PTC technology is
(ii) In September 2016, when reviewing data collected in the OMB-approved Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165), staff from the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation requested that FRA also collect information to directly show each railroad's progress towards completing the RSD criteria under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi)-(vii). Specifically, to receive an extension beyond December 31, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2020, for certain non-hardware, operational aspects of PTC system implementation, a railroad must complete each of the statutory prerequisites under 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B), including one prerequisite that differs depending on whether a railroad is or is not a Class I railroad or Amtrak. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi)-(vii). For Class I railroads and Amtrak, one of the statutory prerequisites is that the railroad must have “implemented a [PTC] system or initiated [RSD] on the majority of territories, such as subdivisions or districts, or route miles” the railroad owns or controls that are required to have operations governed by a PTC system. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi). For other railroads (railroads that are not Class I railroads or Amtrak), one of the statutory prerequisites is that the entity must have initiated RSD on at least 1 territory required to have PTC-governed operations, or met any other criteria FRA established. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vii). To be clear, by law, Congress authorizes FRA to establish alternative RSD criteria only for entities that are not Class I railroads or Amtrak.
The Summary Section in the current Quarterly PTC Progress Report, approved through June 30, 2017, asks railroads to report route miles in “Testing or Revenue Service Demonstration.” However, that does not directly indicate whether or not the railroad has satisfied the above criteria because, for example, those route miles might refer to a combination of route miles in field testing and route miles in RSD, and also it does not provide any information about the number of territories where the railroad has initiated RSD and how many territories are required to have operations governed by a PTC system. Similarly, the drop-down menu in Section 4 regarding the overall current status of track segments has a “Testing” option, which provides only an overview of whether that railroad is currently doing either field testing or RSD in the track segment, but does not differentiate between field testing and RSD, as there might be various stages of testing occurring in a particular track segment.
Rather than substantially changing the existing Summary Section and Section 4 of the form, and thus requiring railroads to deviate from the procedures and formulas they already have in place for quarterly reporting, FRA proposes simply adding one new row to the Summary Section and leaving the rest of the form and fields unchanged.
Specifically, to address the request from Congressional staff, FRA proposes adding a new row in the Summary Section entitled, “Territories Where Revenue Service Demonstration Has Been Initiated.” The table headings, “Cumulative Quantity Completed To Date” and “Total Quantity Required for PTC Implementation” would remain in place in the Summary Section. FRA proposes adding a footnote after the word “Territories” in the new row to define a territory as “an entire installation/track segment as identified in the railroad's PTCIP (
Finally, FRA has made one additional formatting change, which reduces the length of the form. FRA removed the final page from the 10-page Appendix B, entitled “Additional Rows for Installation/Track Segment Progress—Current Status,” as that page was not necessary for any of the 41 reporting railroads to complete based on the number of railroads' track segments.
The associated collection of information is summarized below.
Reporting Burden:
FRA notes that the 21.60-hour estimate is an average for all railroads. FRA estimated the quarterly reporting burden is approximately 40.5 hours for the 11 Class I and large passenger railroads per quarterly form, approximately 27.5 hours for the 11 Class II and medium passenger railroads per quarterly form, and approximately 7.25 hours for the 19 Class III, terminal, and small passenger railroads per quarterly form.
For the reasons outlined above, FRA requests regular processing and OMB authorization to collect the information on the revised Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form (Form FRA F 6180.165), 30 days after publication of this notice for a period of 3 years.
Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(2).
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0092. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TWANOH is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0094. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SOMEWHERE is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0093. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel COYOTE is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0095. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel SEDNA is:
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
49 CFR 1.93(a), 46 U.S.C. 55103, 46 U.S.C. 12121.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before June 29, 2017.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2017-0096. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the
Bianca Carr, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W23-453, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-9309, Email
As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel RESOLUTE is:
The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2017-0096 at
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT/MARAD solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT/MARAD posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee (hereinafter in this section referred to as “the Committee”).
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on June 15, 2017.
All nominations should be mailed to Veterans Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW. (30), Washington, DC 20420.
Christine Merna, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Experience Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW. (30), Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 632-8692.
The Veterans' Family, Caregiver, and Survivor Advisory Committee is being established to advise the Secretary of VA on issues related to:
(1) Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors across all generations, relationships, and Veteran status;
(2) The use of VA care and benefits services by Veteran's families, caregivers, and survivors, and possible adjustments to such care and benefits services;
(3) Veterans' family, caregiver, and survivor experiences, and VA policies, regulations, and administrative requirements related to the transition of Service members from the Department of Defense to enrollment in VA that impact Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors; and
(4) Factors that influence access to, quality of, and accountability for services and benefits for Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors.
The Committee responsibilities include:
(1) Advising the Secretary on how VA can assist and represent Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors, including recommendations regarding expanding services and benefits to Veterans' family members, caregivers, and survivors who are not currently served by VA, and related policy. Administrative, legislative, and/or regulatory actions;
(2) Advising the Secretary on incorporating lessons learned from current, and previous, successful family research and outreach efforts that measure the impact of provided care and benefits services on Veterans' family, caregivers, and/or survivors;
(3) Advising the Secretary on collaborating with family support programs within VA and engaging with other VA and non-VA advisory committees focused on specific demographics of Veterans and their families, caregivers, and survivors;
(4) Advising the Secretary on working with interagency, intergovernmental, private/non-profit, community, and faith-based organizations to identify and address gaps in services;
(5) Advising the Secretary on utilizing journey mapping or other means to depict the experience life cycle of families, caregivers, and survivors of Veterans to create a more holistic understanding of important life cycle events, moments that matter, and their impacts, and to ensure accountability;
(6) Advising the Secretary on Veterans' family, caregiver, and survivor experiences, and the impact of VA policies, regulations, and administrative requirements related to the transition of Service members from the Department of Defense to the enrollment of Veterans;
(7) Advising the Secretary on integrating Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors into key VA initiatives such as access to care, suicide prevention, and homelessness; and
(8) Providing such reports as the Committee deems necessary, but not less than one report per year, to the Secretary, through the Chief Veterans Experience Officer, Veterans Experience Office to describe the Committee's activities, deliberations, and findings, which may include but are not limited to: (1) Identification of current challenges and recommendations for remediation related to access to care and benefits services of Veterans' families, caregivers, and survivors; and (2) identification of current best practices in care and benefits delivery to Veterans' families, caregivers, and
Membership Criteria and Qualifications: VA is requesting nominations for Committee membership. The Committee is composed of up to 20 members and several ex-officio members.
The members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary of Veteran Affairs from the general public, from various sectors and organizations, including but not limited to:
(1) Veteran's family members, caregivers, and survivors
(2) Veteran-focused organizations;
(3) Military history and academic communities;
(4) National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs;
(5) The Federal Executive Branch;
(6) Research experts and service providers; and
(7) Leaders of key stakeholder associations and organizations.
In accordance with the Committee Charter, the Secretary shall determine the number (up to 20), terms of service, and pay and allowances of Committee members, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed two years. The Secretary may reappoint any Committee member for additional terms of service.
To the extent possible, the Secretary seeks members who have diverse professional and personal qualifications including but not limited to subject matter experts in the areas described above. We ask that nominations include any relevant experience information so that VA can ensure diverse Committee membership.
(1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) The nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone numbers, and email address;
(3) The nominee's curriculum vitae; and
(4) A summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the membership considerations described above.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. Committee members will receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, including per diem and reimbursement for eligible travel expenses incurred.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of VA Federal advisory committees is diverse in terms of points of view represented and the committee's capabilities. Appointments to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
The Committee is being established by the directive of the Secretary of VA, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Enterprise Integration—MyVA Task Force, is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the MyVA Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs related to the Department's MyVA initiative and VA's ability to rebuild trust with Veterans and other stakeholders, improve service delivery with a focus on Veteran outcomes, and set the course for longer-term excellence and reform of VA. Nominations of qualified candidates are being sought to fill upcoming vacancies on the Committee.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2017. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle. All nomination packages should be sent to the Advisory Committee Management Office by email (recommended) or mail.
Advisory Committee Management Office (00AC), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420,
The Committee's responsibilities include:
(1) Periodic reviews of the Department's progress on the MyVA efforts identified by the Secretary to address and improve Veteran engagement and experience, streamline internal processes to enhance the delivery of services, and reorganize to integrate services across VA business lines.
(2) Advise on completing short-term and long-range plans, priorities, and strategies to improve the operational functions, services, processes, and outputs of the Department to achieve the outcomes outlined above.
(3) Advice on appropriate levels of support and funding to develop those plans, priorities and strategies, and to help maintain appropriate balance between competing elements of the Department.
(4) Advice on implementation of recommended improvements. Management and support services for the Committee are provided by the MyVA Task Force.
VA is requesting nominations for Committee membership. The Committee is comprised of up to 20 members. The members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary from the general public.
The Secretary shall determine the number, terms of service, and pay and allowances of members of the Committee appointed by the Secretary. Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. The Secretary may reappoint any member for additional terms of service. Committee members will receive per diem and reimbursement for travel expenses incurred.
Nominations should be typed (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include:
(1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) The nominee's contact information, including name, mailing
(3) The nominee's curriculum vitae, no more than three pages and a one page cover letter; and
(4) A summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications.
The Department shall make every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Appointments to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
The Committee is established by the directive of the Secretary of VA, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 2.
Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Service, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment Service, 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 July 31, 2017.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through
Cynthia Harvey-Pryor, Enterprise Records Service (005R1B), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-5870 or email
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, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA'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.
By direction of the Secretary.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) prescribes final frameworks from which States may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 2017-18 migratory bird hunting seasons. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate the States' selection of hunting seasons and to further the annual establishment of the migratory bird hunting regulations. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed in hunting seasons. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population and habitat conditions.
This rule takes effect on May 30, 2017.
States should send their season selections to: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803. You may inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office at 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 or at
Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; (703) 358-1967.
On June 10, 2016, we published a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20 (81 FR 38050). The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2017-18 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and
Subsequent sections of this document refer only to the numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, the numbered items discussed below will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
The June 10, 2016, proposed rule also provided detailed information on the proposed 2017-18 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
On August 12, 2016, we published in the
On October 25-26, 2016, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2017-18 regulations for these species.
On February 9, 2017, we published in the
Each year we publish various species status reports that provide detailed information on the status and harvest of migratory game birds, including information on the methodologies and results. These reports are available at the address indicated under
We used the following reports: Adaptive Harvest Management, 2017 Hunting Season (August 2016); American Woodcock Population Status, 2016 (August 2016); Band-tailed Pigeon Population Status, 2016 (September 2016); Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvest During the 2014-15 and 2015-16 Hunting Seasons (October 2016); Mourning Dove Population Status, 2016 (August 2016); Status and Harvests of Sandhill Cranes, Mid-continent, Rocky Mountain, Lower Colorado River Valley and Eastern Populations, 2016 (September 2016); and Waterfowl Population Status, 2016 (August 2016).
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the June 10, 2016,
We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below. We have included only the numbered items pertaining to issues for which we received recommendations. Consequently, the issues do not follow in successive numerical order.
A commenter expressed general support for moving the March 10 framework ending date for all waterfowl to an April closing date.
A commenter requested that the rule address lead ammunition and potential concerns about lead contamination.
A commenter requested that the regulation of migratory bird hunting be left to the individual States rather than the Federal Government.
In regard to the request for a later framework closing date, we note that the March 10 date is the latest date for migratory bird hunting specified in the Migratory Bird Treaty with Canada.
In regard to lead ammunition, the regulations pertaining to the use of nontoxic shot are contained in 50 CFR 20.21(j) and are not the subject of this rule.
In regard to turning over the establishment of these regulations to the individual States, we note that, due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, and for the protection and management of these birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when “hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg” of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to “the zones of temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such birds” and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort of State, Tribal, and Federal governments. Annually, the Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties. We then cooperatively develop migratory game bird hunting regulations by establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. After frameworks are established, States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. This process preserves the ability of the States to determine which seasons meet their individual needs.
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulation changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of mallard populations that contribute primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California (as based on Canadian Wildlife Service and State-conducted surveys).
For the 2017-18 season, we recommend continuing to use independent optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern mallards, mid-continent mallards, and
As we stated in the August 12, 2016, proposed rule, for the 2017-18 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the “restrictive,” “moderate,” and “liberal” alternatives has remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended framework dates have been offered in the “moderate” and “liberal” regulatory alternatives since 2002 (67 FR 47224; July 17, 2002).
The optimal AHM strategies for mid-continent, eastern, and western mallards for the 2017-18 hunting season were calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard stock; (2) the 2017-18 regulatory alternatives (see further discussion below under B. Regulatory Alternatives); and (3) current population models and associated weights. Based on “liberal” regulatory alternatives selected for the 2016 hunting season, the 2016 survey results of 11.89 million mid-continent mallards (traditional survey area minus Alaska and the Old Crow Flats area of the Yukon Territory, plus Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) and 3.49 million ponds in Prairie Canada, 0.72 million eastern mallards, and 1.07 million western mallards (0.48 million in California-Oregon and 0.58 million in Alaska), the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the “liberal” alternative. Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection of the “liberal” regulatory alternative for the 2017-18 season and propose to adopt the “liberal” regulatory alternative, as described in the August 12, 2016,
Regarding the Mississippi Flyway Council recommendation to limit regulatory changes to one step per year, as we stated in the August 12, 2016,
Regarding season dates in South Dakota, the State of South Dakota has the prerogative to select any season dates they desire within the overall frameworks. We assume South Dakota is weighing the concerns and wishes of all their hunters and other affected interests when doing so.
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that States with ongoing experimental teal seasons in the Mississippi Flyway be allowed an additional year (2017-18 seasons) to evaluate impacts to nontarget species.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that we allow an experimental September teal season in the northern portion of Nebraska to continue for the 2017-18 hunting season.
We agree with the Atlantic Flyway's request to grant operation status to Maryland's pre-sunrise portion of their season. Available information collected during the 2013-16 seasons indicates that both nontarget harvest and attempt rates were well below the maximum allowed rates.
We also agree with the Councils' requests to extend the current experimental seasons for another season in order to collect additional data. Sample size requirement criteria are specified in the memorandums of agreement (MOAs) between the various States and the Service, and the MOAs allow for an extension of the experimental seasons to meet these data needs, with concurrence by both the Service and the State.
A copy of the strategy is available at the address indicated under
For the 2017-18 season, the optimal country-specific regulatory strategies were calculated using: (1) The black duck harvest objective (98 percent of long-term cumulative harvest); (2) 2017-18 country-specific regulatory alternatives; (3) current parameter estimates describing the effects of mallard competition on black duck productivity and additive mortality on black duck annual survival; and (4) 2016 survey results of 0.61 million breeding black ducks and 0.41 million breeding mallards in the core survey area. The optimal regulatory choices for the 2017-18 season are the “liberal” package in Canada and the “moderate” package in the United States.
For scaup, optimal regulatory strategies for the 2017-18 season were calculated using: (1) An objective to achieve 95 percent of long-term cumulative harvest, (2) current scaup regulatory alternatives, and (3) updated model parameters and weights. Based on a “moderate” regulatory alternative selected in 2016, and the 2016 survey results of 4.99 million scaup, the optimal regulatory choice for the 2017-18 season for all four Flyways is the “moderate” regulatory alternative.
An individual from Wisconsin expressed desire for a longer early season (September 1-15) targeting resident geese, a regular season that can run into January, and an increase in the daily bag limit from 2 to 3 birds.
In the Mississippi Flyway, we note that during the past several years the Mississippi Flyway has moved from State-specific frameworks to a general flyway-wide framework for Canada goose regulations. At the same time, population monitoring programs have been modified to become more cost-efficient and have focused on obtaining general subarctic goose population estimates rather than separate estimates for the Mississippi Valley Population (MVP), the Eastern Prairie Population (EPP), and the Southern James Bay Population (SJBP). We have allowed changes to Mississippi Flyway Canada goose frameworks with the expectation that a new Canada goose management plan would be developed. Because the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils currently share a joint management plan for the SJBP population, we conclude the Atlantic Flyway must be included in the development of the new Canada goose management plan in the Mississippi Flyway. Thus, we urge the Mississippi Flyway to complete the Canada goose management plan this winter and collaborate with the Atlantic Flyway where appropriate. The final plan should be presented at the June 2017 SRC meeting. We will not entertain further changes to Mississippi Flyway Canada goose frameworks in the absence of a final management plan.
We agree with Idaho's requested modifications to their goose zones for the 2017-18 seasons. Since the changes are an outgrowth of an extensive waterfowl hunter opinion survey and will better align with existing duck hunting zones, we support their request.
Lastly, in regard to the comments concerning Wisconsin's goose season, we point out that the current frameworks for Canada geese in Wisconsin allow that “States may select seasons for Canada geese not to exceed 107 days with a 5-bird daily bag limit September 1-30 (except in the Intensive Harvest Zone in Minnesota, which may have up to a 10-bird daily bag limit) and a 3-bird daily bag limit for the remainder of the season. Seasons may be held between September 1 and February 15 and may be split into 4 segments.”
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended allowing a 3-segment split hunting season for white-fronted geese in the Northeast Zone of California.
We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to allow a 3-segment split hunting season for white-fronted geese in the Northeast Zone of California. Current frameworks allow a 3-segment split for Canada geese and greater white-fronted geese; but this arrangement requires Pacific Flyway Council and Service approval and a 3-year evaluation by each participating State. The current 3-year average predicted fall population estimate (2014-16) for the Pacific Population of greater white-fronted geese is 600,592, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 300,000. Agricultural complaints have increased in the Northeastern Zone of California and there have been requests to allow more days during the late part of the season, in addition to days during the early part of the season. White-fronted geese use the Northeastern Zone as a fall and spring staging area, but otherwise winter primarily in the Sacramento Valley. A 3-segment season would allow hunting to coincide with white-fronted goose occurrence in this zone, and would be consistent with the frameworks for splitting the light goose season in the same zone. California proposed to evaluate the three-segment split season for greater white-fronted geese in the Northeastern Zone by monitoring the harvest of Tule greater white-fronted geese that are known to occur in that zone in late winter and early spring. Morphometric measurements will be obtained from hunters who allow their harvested birds to be measured, and band recovery data will be reviewed to identify subspecies harvest of white-fronted geese.
Regarding Idaho's requested modifications to their goose zones, see our response above under 4. Canada Geese, B. Regular Seasons.
The Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the number of segments available for non-Canada geese should be increased from 3 to 4 for the Mississippi Flyway.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing the daily bag limit from 3 to 4 for Canada geese and brant in the aggregate in Wyoming and New Mexico.
Under the new regulatory schedule, neither the expected 2017 brant production information (available summer 2017) nor the 2017 MWS count (conducted in January 2017) is yet available. However, the 2017 MWS will be completed and winter brant data will be available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late February 2017). Therefore, in the September 24, 2015,
• If the mid-winter waterfowl survey (MWS) count is <100,000 Atlantic brant, the season would be closed.
• If the MWS count is between 100,000 and 115,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 115,000 and 130,000 brant, States could select a 30-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 130,000 and 150,000 brant, States could select a 50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is between 150,000 and 200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
• If the MWS count is >200,000 brant, States could select a 60-day season with a 3-bird daily bag limit.
Under all the above open-season alternatives, seasons would be between the Saturday nearest September 24 and January 31. Further, States could split their seasons into 2 segments.
The recently completed 2017 MWS Atlantic brant count was 161,661 brant. Thus, utilizing the above Atlantic brant hunt strategies, the appropriate Atlantic brant hunting season for the 2017-18 season is a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
As we stated above under 5. White-fronted Geese, we agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation request to increase the number of segments available for non-Canada geese from 3 to 4 for the Mississippi Flyway. Increasing the number of segments for other geese (snow geese, white-fronted geese, and brant) will allow States flexibility to open and/or close all goose seasons on the same date. Since the numbers of brant present in the Mississippi Flyway in September are low, we expect no impacts from this change.
As we stated above under 4. Canada Geese, B. Regular Seasons, we agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's request to increase the daily bag limit from 3 to 4 for Canada geese and brant in the aggregate in Wyoming and New Mexico. We expect no impacts to brant from this change.
Regarding Idaho's requested modifications to their goose zones, see our response above under 4. Canada Geese, B. Regular Seasons.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended two changes to the light goose season frameworks. Specifically, the Council recommended:
1. In Washington, removing the daily bag limit restriction of not more than 4 geese per day, and adding that the daily bag limit for light geese is 6.
2. In Idaho, eliminating the requirement to monitor the snow goose hunt that occurs after the last Sunday in January in the American Falls Reservoir/Fort Hall Bottoms and surrounding areas at 3-year intervals.
We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to remove the daily bag limit restriction of not more than 4 geese per day, and add that the daily bag limit for light geese is 6 in Washington. Current frameworks already limit the daily bag limit to 4 Canada geese for States within the western Pacific Flyway, but do allow a daily bag limit of 10 greater white-fronted geese for States within the Pacific Flyway except Washington. The current 3-year average predicted fall population estimate (2014-16) for the Pacific Population of greater white-fronted geese is 600,592, which is substantially above the Flyway population objective of 300,000. This change would allow a daily bag limit of 10 greater white-fronted geese in Washington similar to other States in
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to eliminate the requirement that Idaho monitor the snow goose hunt that occurs after the last Sunday in January in the American Falls Reservoir/Fort Hall Bottoms and surrounding areas at 3-year intervals. Since the inception of the late-winter light goose hunt in 2010, Idaho has conducted ground surveys in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2015, to evaluate the effects of light goose hunting on trumpeter swans. To date, no obvious negative trends in trumpeter swan use, distribution, or abundance have been documented. We note that this program was designed to identify changes in swan distribution and swan field-feeding during the late winter light goose hunt in order to help assess if changes in that hunt were warranted. The importance of the Fort Hall Reservation to swans for field-feeding was unknown prior to the surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012. Previously, it was assumed that a majority of the field-feeding occurred on the northwestern side of the American Falls Reservoir. However, surveys indicate that the Fort Hall Reservation is an important and viable site for field-feeding swans in late winter. While there is no definitive evidence indicating that swans are disturbed and displaced by hunting pressure, if negative interactions between hunting activities and swan behavior occur, the Fort Hall Reservation provides ample field-feeding opportunities where hunting is prohibited. Thus, given no compelling concerns or issues associated with trumpeter swans wintering in eastern Idaho, and no negative impacts associated with the current late-winter light goose hunt, we see no reason to repeat monitoring efforts annually or every 3 years.
Regarding Idaho's requested modifications to their goose zones, see our response above under 4. Canada Geese, B. Regular Seasons.
The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended (1) expansion of the existing sandhill crane hunting unit in southwestern Montana (Gallatin and Madison Counties and the Dillon/Twin Bridges/Cardwell hunt area) to include all of Beaverhead and Jefferson Counties, and (2) that allowable harvest be determined based on the formula described in the Pacific and Central Flyway Management Plan for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of sandhill cranes.
Regarding the RMP crane harvest, we agree with the Central and Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation for expanding the RMP sandhill crane hunting areas in Montana to include all of Beaverhead and Jefferson Counties. The new hunt areas are consistent with the Pacific and Central Flyway Council's RMP sandhill crane management plan hunting area requirements.
Regarding the RMP crane harvest, as we discussed in the March 28, 2016, final rule (81 FR 17302), the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable harvest of the RMP of sandhill cranes does not fit well within the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the fall abundance and recruitment surveys of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 1 and January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed frameworks will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If the usual procedures for determining allowable harvest were used, data 2 to 4 years old would be used to determine the annual allocation for RMP sandhill cranes. Due to the variability in fall abundance and recruitment for this population, and their impact on the annual harvest allocations, we agree that relying on data that is 2 to 4 years old is not ideal. Thus, we agree that the formula to determine the annual allowable harvest for RMP sandhill cranes published in the March 28, 2016, final rule should be used under the new regulatory schedule and propose to utilize it as such.
The formula uses information on abundance and recruitment collected annually through operational monitoring programs, as well as constant values based on past research or monitoring for survival of fledglings to breeding age and harvest retrieval rate. The formula is:
The 2016 fall RMP sandhill crane abundance estimate was 22,264 cranes, resulting in a 3-year (2014-16) average of 22,087 cranes, an increase from the previous 3-year average, which was 21,453 cranes. The RMP crane recruitment estimate was 8.84 percent young in the fall population, resulting in a 3-year (2014-16) average of 10.16 percent, an increase from the previous 3-year average, which was 9.41 percent. Using the above formula and the above most recent 3-year average abundance and recruitment estimates, the allowable harvest for the 2017-18 season is 2,362 cranes.
Regarding the hunting of sandhill cranes, we have annually established frameworks for the hunting of sandhill cranes since 1961. Currently, 16 States in the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways hold a sandhill crane season. Given the current population status, we conclude the final frameworks are commensurate with the population status.
In 2011, we implemented a harvest strategy for woodcock (76 FR 19876, April 8, 2011). The harvest strategy provides a transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and assessment protocols for this species. Utilizing the criteria developed for the strategy, the 3-year average for the Singing Ground Survey indices and associated confidence intervals fall within the “moderate package” for both the Eastern and Central Management Regions. As such, a “moderate season” for both management regions for the 2017-18 season is appropriate.
Specifics of the harvest strategy can be found at
The Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils recommended the use of the “standard” season package of a 15-bird daily bag limit and a 90-day season for the 2017-18 mourning dove season in the States within the Central Management Unit. They further recommended that the South Zone in Texas opening framework date be changed from “the Friday nearest September 20th, but no earlier than September 17th” to a fixed date of September 14 and that the Special White-winged Dove Area boundary be expanded from its current boundary to include the entire South Zone.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended use of the “standard” season framework for States in the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves. In Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate. In Arizona and California, the season length would be no more than 60 consecutive days, which could be split between two periods, September 1-15 and November 1-January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves. During the remainder of the season, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning doves. In California, the daily bag limit would be 15 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 10 could be white-winged doves. The Pacific Flyway Council also recommended allowing a 2-segment split season in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
We do not support the recommendation from the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways to change the closing framework date for dove seasons in the EMU to January 31. We note that when this recommendation was presented to us in June, we requested information on the expected biological impacts of this change. That information has not been provided. We are also unclear as to what the EMU is trying to achieve with this recommendation, given that no additional harvest is expected. While we recognize that conducting a study to evaluate the biological impacts would be prohibitively expensive, we will work with the EMU to develop a feasible biological assessment.
We support the Central and Mississippi Flyways' recommendations to change the opening framework date for the South Dove Zone of Texas to a fixed date of September 14, to be implemented in the 2018-19 hunting season. Based on the statements made by the Flyways at the October SRC meeting, we understand that this proposed change meets all the needs of dove hunters in that zone. Thus, we will not entertain earlier dove opening framework dates in the South Zone unless data are provided that show the impacts on the biology and harvest of doves.
We agree with the Central and Mississippi Flyways' recommendations to expand the boundary of Texas' Special White-winged Dove Area to match that of the South Dove Zone for the 2017-18 season. Available evidence indicates that white-winged dove abundance continues to increase, and this change will allow additional harvest opportunities on this species, with minimal impacts to mourning and white-tipped doves.
We also agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to allow a 2-segment split season in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Estimated abundance of the Western Management Unit Population (WMU) of mourning doves was 37,044,000 in 2015, and was predicted to be 45,220,000 in 2016 (2016 actual abundance estimates are not yet available). The 2015 observed and 2016 predicted abundance estimates are well above the thresholds that would result in a closed (<11,600,000 doves) or restrictive (<19,300,000 doves) hunting season as prescribed in the National Mourning Dove Harvest Strategy. The estimated annual harvest rates during 2003-2015 for WMU hatch-year and after-hatch-year doves was 4.4 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively. Mourning dove harvest may increase under this proposal; however, any increase is expected to constitute a small percentage of the overall mourning dove harvest among the northern States in the WMU. Harvest Information Program data indicate 85 percent of the mourning dove harvest in the northern States of the WMU occurs during the first 2 weeks of September, a pattern that is similar to most other States in the United States. The option to split the dove season in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington provides more flexibility to the States in setting doves seasons, considering that dove season length increased to 60 days starting in 2015, compared to 30 days during 1987-2014. Currently, all States in the Eastern Management Unit, the Central Management Unit, and southern States in the Western Management Unit are allowed to split their dove seasons into two or three segments. Thus, this change will make regulations regarding split dove seasons similar in all States within the Pacific Flyway, and result in greater consistency throughout all three dove management units.
Additionally, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the hunting of emperor geese in Alaska as allowed under the Pacific Flyway Council and Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council's management plan. A copy of the EA and specifics of the two alternatives we analyzed can be found at either
This action is not subject to Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to routine hunting and fishing activities.
The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). We used this analysis again for the 2017-18 season. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the 2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13, the 2014-15, the 2015-16, the 2016-17, and the 2017-18 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of the record for this rule and is available at
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
This rule does not contain any new information collection that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• 1018-0019—North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires 5/31/2018).
• 1018-0023—Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017; in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10, the agency may continue to conduct or sponsor this collection of information while the submission is pending at OMB). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule would allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on the use of private and public property.
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources. We have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we concluded were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the SRC meeting. Therefore, sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons regarding the migratory bird hunting frameworks for the 2017-18 hunting seasons.
Further, after establishment of the final frameworks, States need sufficient time to conduct their own public processes to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions Thus, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States might not be able to meet their own administrative needs and requirements.
For the reasons cited above, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks will take effect immediately upon publication.
Therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), we prescribe final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, from which State conservation agency officials will select hunting season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season selections from these officials, we will publish a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the United States for the 2017-18 seasons. The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2017-18 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following frameworks for season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and outside dates within which States may select seasons for hunting migratory game birds between the dates of September 1, 2017, and March 10, 2018. These frameworks are summarized below.
These Federally authorized, State-issued permits are issued to individuals, and only the individual whose name and address appears on the permit at the time of issuance is authorized to take migratory birds at levels specified in the permit, in accordance with provisions of both Federal and State regulations governing the hunting season. The permit must be carried by the permittee when exercising its provisions and must be presented to any law enforcement officer upon request. The permit is not transferrable or assignable to another individual, and may not be sold, bartered, traded, or otherwise provided to another person. If the permit is altered or defaced in any way, the permit becomes invalid.
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
For the purpose of the hunting regulations listed below, the collective terms “dark” and “light” geese include the following species:
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, where Sunday hunting is prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including mergansers and coots).
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia may select a Special Sea Duck Season in designated Special Sea Duck Areas. If a Special Sea Duck Season is selected, scoters, eiders, and long-tailed ducks may be taken in the designated Special Sea Duck Area(s) only during the Special Sea Duck Season dates; scoters, eiders, and long-tailed ducks may be taken outside of Special Sea Duck Area(s) during the regular duck season, in accordance with the frameworks for ducks, mergansers, and coots specified above.
A Canada goose season of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected for the Eastern Unit of Maryland. Seasons not to exceed 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected for Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York (Long Island Zone only), North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Seasons may not exceed 25 days during September 1-25 in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
In Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, the season may be split into two segments in each zone.
In Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi, the season may be split into three segments.
In Colorado, Kansas, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, the regular season may be split into two segments.
In Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, States may select seasons not to exceed 107 days. The daily bag limit for dark geese is 5 in the aggregate.
In the Western Goose Zone of Texas, the season may not exceed 95 days. The daily bag limit for Canada geese (or any other dark goose species except white-fronted geese) is 5. The daily bag limit for white-fronted geese is 2.
Montana and New Mexico may split their seasons into three segments.
In portions of the Pacific Flyway (Montana, Nevada, and Utah), an open season for taking a limited number of swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the State and will authorize each permittee to take no more than 1 swan per season with each permit. Nevada may issue up to 2 permits per hunter. Montana and Utah may issue only 1 permit per hunter. Each State's season may open no earlier than the Saturday nearest October 1 (September 30). These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
In addition, the States of Utah and Nevada must implement a harvest-monitoring program to measure the species composition of the swan harvest. The harvest-monitoring program must require that all harvested swans or their species-determinant parts be examined by either State or Federal biologists for the purpose of species classification. The States should use appropriate measures to maximize hunter compliance in providing bagged swans for examination. Further, the States of Montana, Nevada, and Utah must achieve at least an 80-percent hunter compliance rate, or subsequent permits will be reduced by 10 percent. All three States must provide to the Service by June 30, 2018, a report detailing harvest, hunter participation, reporting compliance, and monitoring of swan populations in the designated hunt areas.
In portions of the Atlantic Flyway (North Carolina and Virginia) and the Central Flyway (North Dakota, South Dakota [east of the Missouri River], and that portion of Montana in the Central Flyway), an open season for taking a limited number of tundra swans may be selected. Permits will be issued by the States that authorize the take of no more than 1 tundra swan per permit. A second permit may be issued to hunters from unused permits remaining after the first drawing. The States must obtain harvest and hunter participation data. These seasons are also subject to the following conditions:
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may select seasons for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) subject to the following conditions:
A. In Utah, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
B. In Arizona, monitoring the racial composition of the harvest must be conducted at 3-year intervals;
C. In Idaho, 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota; and
D. In New Mexico, the season in the Estancia Valley is experimental, with a requirement to monitor the level and racial composition of the harvest; greater sandhill cranes in the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota.
A. The hunting season may be split into not more than two periods, except in that portion of Texas in which the special white-winged dove season is allowed, where a limited take of mourning and white-tipped doves may also occur during that special season (see Special White-winged Dove Area).
B. A season may be selected for the North and Central Zones between September 1 and January 25; and for the South Zone between the Friday nearest September 20 (September 22), but not earlier than September 17, and January 25.
C. Except as noted above, regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within each hunting zone.
In addition to the basic duck limits, Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 daily, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers.
A. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is permitted from September 28 through December 16.
B. On Middleton Island in Unit 6, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check in and check out. The bag limit is 1 daily and 1 in possession. The season will close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters.
C. In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, the daily bag limit is 6 Canada geese.
A. In Units 9, 10, and 17, the daily bag limit is 6 white-fronted geese.
B. In Unit 18, the daily bag limit is 10 white-fronted geese.
A. All seasons are by permit only.
B. No more than 1 emperor goose may be authorized per permit.
C. Total harvest may not exceed 1,000 emperor geese.
D. In State Game Management Unit 18, the Kodiak Island Road Area is
A. All seasons are by permit only.
B. All season framework dates are September 1-October 31.
C. In Unit 17, no more than 200 permits may be issued during this operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit, with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
D. In Unit 18, no more than 500 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
E. In Unit 22, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
F. In Unit 23, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
Mourning doves may be taken in Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours and other regulations set by the State of Hawaii, and subject to the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 20.
Falconry is a permitted means of taking migratory game birds in any State meeting Federal falconry standards in 50 CFR 21.29. These States may select an extended season for taking migratory game birds in accordance with the following:
North Zone: Same as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
SJBP Hunt Zone: Includes the following counties or portions of counties: Anson, Cabarrus, Chatham, Davidson, Durham, Halifax (that portion east of NC 903), Montgomery (that portion west of NC 109), Northampton, Richmond (that portion south of NC 73 and west of U.S. 220 and north of U.S. 74), Rowan, Stanly, Union, and Wake.
Resident Canada Goose Zone: All of Pennsylvania except for SJBP Zone and the area east of route SR 97 from the Maryland State Line to the intersection of SR 194, east of SR 194 to intersection of U.S. Route 30, south of U.S. Route 30 to SR 441, east of SR 441 to SR 743, east of SR 743 to intersection of I-81, east of I-81 to intersection of I-80, and south of I-80 to the New Jersey State line.
East of U.S. 301: That portion of Clarendon County bounded to the North by S-14-25, to the East by Hwy 260, and to the South by the markers delineating the channel of the Santee River. West of U.S. 301: That portion of Clarendon County bounded on the North by S-14-26 extending southward to that portion of Orangeburg County bordered by Hwy 6.
Same zones as for ducks.
Early Canada Goose Seasons:
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks but in addition:
Same zones as for ducks.
Same zones as for ducks.
Canada Geese and Brant
Zone 6: Valley County.
Same zones as for ducks.
(A) That portion of the State lying east and north of a line beginning at the junction of U.S. Highway 81 and the Texas-Oklahoma State line, then southeast along U.S. Highway 81 to its junction with U.S. Highway 287 in Montague County, then southeast along U.S. Highway 287 to its junction with I-
(B) That portion of the State lying within the boundaries of a line beginning at the Kleberg-Nueces County line and the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, then west along the County line to Park Road 22 in Nueces County, then north and west along Park Road 22 to its junction with State Highway 358 in Corpus Christi, then west and north along State Highway 358 to its junction with State Highway 286, then north along State Highway 286 to its junction with Interstate Highway 37, then east along Interstate Highway 37 to its junction with U.S. Highway 181, then north and west along U.S. Highway 181 to its junction with U.S. Highway 77 in Sinton, then north and east along U.S. Highway 77 to its junction with U.S. Highway 87 in Victoria, then south and east along U.S. Highway 87 to its junction with State Highway 35 at Port Lavaca, then north and east along State Highway 35 to the south end of the Lavaca Bay Causeway, then south and east along the shore of Lavaca Bay to its junction with the Port Lavaca Ship Channel, then south and east along the Lavaca Bay Ship Channel to the Gulf of Mexico, and then south and west along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Kleberg-Nueces County line.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |