| Page Range | 28233-28390 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 28389 - Father's Day, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 28387 - Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act | |
| 82 FR 28350 - Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Amendment to Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance | |
| 82 FR 28294 - Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 10.443-Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program | |
| 82 FR 28301 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 28255 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 2017 Commercial Accountability Measure and Closure for South Atlantic Snowy Grouper | |
| 82 FR 28243 - Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances From New Unit Set-Asides for the 2017 Compliance Year | |
| 82 FR 28279 - Interpretative Bulletin for Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards Foundation Requirements in Freezing Temperature Areas Under 24 CFR 3285.312(b) | |
| 82 FR 28303 - Surveys of Marine Recreational Fishing Effort on the U.S. Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico; Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP); Center for Independent Experts; Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 28316 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, June 22, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 28319 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 28315 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget | |
| 82 FR 28318 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 28316 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission | |
| 82 FR 28317 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority | |
| 82 FR 28336 - Notice of Annual Factors for Determining Public Housing Agency Administrative Fees for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs | |
| 82 FR 28301 - Ochoco National Forest, Lookout Mountain Ranger District; Oregon; Ochoco Wild and Free Roaming Herd Management Plan Revision Project EIS | |
| 82 FR 28372 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Indiana | |
| 82 FR 28372 - Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of North Carolina | |
| 82 FR 28333 - Authority To Accept Unsolicited Proposals for Research Partnerships | |
| 82 FR 28370 - Westcore Trust and Denver Investment Advisors LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 28320 - Notice of Agreement Filed | |
| 82 FR 28308 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Evaluation of Parent Messaging Strategies on Student Attendance | |
| 82 FR 28262 - Importation of Tree Tomatoes From Ecuador Into the Continental United States | |
| 82 FR 28257 - Importation of Fresh Pomegranate Fruit From Turkey Into the Continental United States | |
| 82 FR 28320 - Draft Current Intelligence Bulletin: The Occupational Exposure Banding Process: Guidance for the Evaluation of Chemical Hazards; Reopening of Comment Period | |
| 82 FR 28234 - Safety Zone; Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA | |
| 82 FR 28349 - Incidental Take Permit Applications Received To Participate in American Burying Beetle Amended Oil and Gas Industry Conservation Plan in Oklahoma | |
| 82 FR 28378 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits | |
| 82 FR 28238 - Safety Zone; Dunkirk Lakeshore Air Show; Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY | |
| 82 FR 28366 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 28306 - Inland Waterways Users Board Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 28306 - Notice of Intended Disinterment | |
| 82 FR 28305 - Solicitation for a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement for the Transfer and Use of a Unique Infrared Laser | |
| 82 FR 28320 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 82 FR 28312 - Davis & Weber Counties Canal Company; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 28311 - Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 82 FR 28309 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 28309 - 1057533 Alberta Ltd. and 1978740 Alberta Ltd.; Notice of Application for Section 3 Authorization and Presidential Permit | |
| 82 FR 28313 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 28363 - Proposed Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery | |
| 82 FR 28364 - Submission of Information Collections for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiemployer Plan Regulations | |
| 82 FR 28354 - Certain Non-Volatile Memory Devices and Products Containing Same Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Unopposed Motion To Amend the Complaint and Notice of Investigation | |
| 82 FR 28290 - Safety Zone; Kaskaskia River, Evansville, IL | |
| 82 FR 28235 - Safety Zones; Sector Upper Mississippi River Annual and Recurring Safety Zones Update | |
| 82 FR 28347 - Endangered Species; Receipt of Applications for Permits | |
| 82 FR 28288 - Safety Zone; Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH | |
| 82 FR 28361 - Information Collection: Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material | |
| 82 FR 28362 - Information Collection: Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions | |
| 82 FR 28360 - Information Collection: Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations | |
| 82 FR 28359 - TUV SUD America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 28356 - Curtis-Strauss LLC: Application for Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 28358 - SGS North America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition | |
| 82 FR 28355 - Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans; Nominations for Vacancies | |
| 82 FR 28355 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; DEA Ambassador Program | |
| 82 FR 28333 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 28322 - Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 121 New Drug Applications and 161 Abbreviated New Drug Applications | |
| 82 FR 28307 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of an Information Strategy To Increase Enrollment in Postsecondary Education | |
| 82 FR 28321 - Development of New Tuberculosis Treatment Regimens-Scientific and Clinical Trial Design Considerations; Public Workshop; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 28353 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1029-0118; Federal Inspections and Monitoring | |
| 82 FR 28352 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1029-0067; Restriction on Financial Interests of State Employees | |
| 82 FR 28351 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1029-0114; Technical Evaluation Surveys | |
| 82 FR 28351 - Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1029-0055; Rights of Entry | |
| 82 FR 28354 - Certain Semiconductor Devices and Consumer Audiovisual Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Steptoe & Johnson LLP's Motion To Intervene for the Limited Purpose of Responding to a Disqualification Motion | |
| 82 FR 28369 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exposure Periods of the MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism and Solicitation Mechanism | |
| 82 FR 28367 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 28246 - Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard | |
| 82 FR 28376 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; BMW of North America, LLC | |
| 82 FR 28375 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 28373 - Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mitsubishi Motors | |
| 82 FR 28244 - Rural Health Care Support Mechanism | |
| 82 FR 28331 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 28330 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 28331 - National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 28330 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 28331 - National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 28371 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Arkansas | |
| 82 FR 28371 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of Arkansas | |
| 82 FR 28381 - Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle | |
| 82 FR 28382 - Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts | |
| 82 FR 28384 - Requests for Applications; Practitioners Advisory Group | |
| 82 FR 28380 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Election Out of GST Deemed Allocations | |
| 82 FR 28310 - Cole Rhoten; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene | |
| 82 FR 28313 - Midship Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Application | |
| 82 FR 28373 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “India Modern: The Paintings of M.F. Husain” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 28332 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 28304 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Reviews for the Endangered Baiji/Chinese River Dolphin/Yangtze River Dolphin and Endangered Saimaa Subspecies of Ringed Seal | |
| 82 FR 28373 - Fiftieth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary | |
| 82 FR 28314 - Proposed Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act; Beatrice Former Manufactured Gas Plant Superfund Site, Beatrice, Nebraska | |
| 82 FR 28245 - Amendment of the Commission's Rules To Accommodate 30 Megahertz Channels in the 6525-6875 MHz Band; and To Provide for Conditional Authorization on Additional Channels in the 21.8-22.0 GHz and 23.0-23.2 GHz Band | |
| 82 FR 28277 - Use of Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures in Clinical Investigations Under Part 11-Questions and Answers; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 28269 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 28266 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 28271 - Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 28233 - Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 in the Vicinity of Stevens Point, WI | |
| 82 FR 28274 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 28307 - Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available for Licensing | |
| 82 FR 28329 - Awards Unsolicited Proposal for the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program | |
| 82 FR 28240 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District | |
| 82 FR 28292 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District, and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Office of Advocacy and Outreach
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in the vicinity of Stevens Point, WI. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI (STE), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the ATS routes amended by this action. This action will enhance the safe and efficient management of aircraft in the Stevens Point, WI, area.
Effective date 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
On February 27, 2017, the FAA published in the
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the V-177 airway segment between the Madison, WI (MAD), VOR/DME and the Wausau, WI (AUW), VORTAC. That proposed amendment incorrectly listed the intended Madison, WI, NAVAID with the identifier “MAD” and as a VOR/DME. However, the NAVAID identifier “MAD” identifies the Madison, CT, VOR/DME. The correct identifier and NAVAID type for the intended Madison, WI, NAVAID is “MSN” and “VORTAC”. The corrected V-177 amendment is to remove the airway segment between the Madison, WI (MSN), VORTAC and the Wausau, WI (AUW), VORTAC.
The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and V-246 due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC. The route changes are described below.
All radials in the route descriptions below are stated relative to True north.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying five VOR Federal airways qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, The FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA determined that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks display taking place over Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach, VA, on July 3, 2017. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this fireworks display event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location listed in the table to § 165.506(c)(6) Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads—COTP Zone from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 3, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LCDR Barbara Wilk, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads, Waterways Management office; telephone 757-668-
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.506 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m. on July 3, 2017, for the Shore Drive Fireworks. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the fireworks display. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the regulated area for this safety zone within a 400 yard radius of the center located at approximate position latitude 36°55′02″ N., longitude 076°03′27″ W., located at Virginia Beach, VA. As specified in § 165.506(d), during the enforcement period, no vessel may enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads (COTP) or a COTP designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.506(d) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement published in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is amending and updating its annual and recurring safety zones that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River Captain of the Port Zone (COTP Zone). This regulation informs the public of regularly scheduled events that require additional safety measures through establishing a safety zone. Through this final rule the current list of recurring safety zones is updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place in the COTP Zone. When these safety zones are enforced, vessel traffic is restricted from specified areas. Additionally, this rulemaking project serves to provide notice of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year.
This rule is effective July 6, 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 LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email
The Coast Guard preceded this final rule with a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with request for comments. The NPRM was published in the
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Upper Mississippi River has determined that potential hazards associated with the recurring events will cause safety concerns. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zones, before, during, and after the scheduled events.
As noted above, during the comment period for our NPRM that published May 8, 2017, no comments were received. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
This rule establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain events taking place in Sector Upper Mississippi River's COTP Zone. This final rule amends, updates, and replaces Table 2 in 33 CFR 165.801. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without first obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed
This rule establishes safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's COTP Zone. The effect of this proposed rulemaking will not be significant because these safety zones are limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public is given advance notification through local forms of notice, the
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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing safety zones limiting access to certain area under 33 CFR 165 within Sector Upper Mississippi River's COTP Zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
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.
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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Dunkirk, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Dunkirk Lakeshore Air Show on July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with aerial stunts, low flying aircraft, and aircraft maneuvers. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP).
This rule is effective from 12:45 p.m. on July 1, 2017, to 5:15 p.m. on July 2, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not provided to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with an air show over a navigable waterway.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017, between 12:45 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. each day, an air show will be held on the shoreline of Lake Erie in Dunkirk, NY. It is anticipated that there will be a heavy amount of recreational boating traffic present to view the air show. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has determined that potential hazards associated with an air show over a navigable waterway pose a significant risk to public safety and property within the immediate location of the show.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:45 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. on July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2017. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie;
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern aerospace assembly, rework, and component manufacturing operations; emissions statements and recordkeeping; and definitions, respectively. We are approving local rules that regulate these sources and issues under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on August 21, 2017 without further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by July 21, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0647 at
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this action with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and
On September 27, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for SDCAPCD Rule 2 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On May 18, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for MDAQMD Rule 1118 met the completeness criteria. On September 28, 2016, the EPA determined that the submittal for NSAQMD Rule 513 met the completeness criteria.
There are no previous versions of NSAQMD Rule 513 in the SIP. We approved an earlier version of MDAQMD Rule 1118 into the SIP on August 17, 1998 (63 FR 43884). We approved an earlier version of SDAPCD Rule 2 into the SIP on September 17, 2010 (75 FR 56889).
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control VOC emissions.
MDAQMD Rule 1118 limits VOC emissions from aerospace primers, coatings, adhesives, maskants and lubricants and from cleaning, stripping, storing and disposal of organic solvents and waste solvent materials associated with the use of aerospace coatings and adhesives. This rule also provides administrative requirements including those for recordkeeping and for the measurement of VOC emissions. Rule 1118 was revised to increase stringency and to update the coatings and practices.
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires ozone nonattainment areas (regardless of classification) to require certified emission statement data from sources of VOC and oxides of nitrogen (NO
SDCAPCD Rule 2, “Definitions,” contains definitions for specific terms applicable to all SDCAPCD rules. Table 1 of Rule 2 was updated to add two exempt organic compounds to coincide with those that EPA has determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity as listed in 40 CFR 51.100. Rule 2 does not have a direct effect on emissions, but it improves clarity and enforceability of other SDCAPCD rules that do reduce emissions.
The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about these rules.
SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193).
Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of VOCs and NO
The other two rules addressed in this action are not submitted in satisfaction of the RACT requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2). CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(i) requires all states with ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 (of part D of title I) as moderate or above, to submit SIP revisions that require owners and operators of stationary sources of VOCs and NO
SDCAPCD Rule 2 provides definitions that support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In combination with the other requirements, this rule must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). We believe Rule 2 fulfills these requirements.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. “State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992 and 57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992).
2. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations” (“the Bluebook,” U.S. EPA, May 25, 1988; revised January 11, 1990).
3. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies” (“the Little Bluebook”, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).
4. EPA's draft “Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission Statement Program,” Dated July 1992.
5. EPA CTG
6. USEPA National Emission Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Facilities Risk and Technology Review; 80 FR 76152 Final Rule December 7, 2015.
We believe these rule are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rules.
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the NSAQMD, MDAQMD, and SDAPCD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 21, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Emissions statements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(242) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(379) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(485) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(487) New and amended regulations were submitted on September 6, 2016 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.
(
(
(488) New and amended regulations were submitted on April 21, 2016 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
(
(
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on June 12, 2017.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability (NODA).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the first round of allocations of allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2017 control periods and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's Web site. EPA will consider timely objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) and will promulgate a notice responding to any such objections no later than August 1, 2017, the deadline for recording the first-round allocations in sources' Allowance Management System accounts.
Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be received on or before July 21, 2017.
Submit your objections via email to
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Robert Miller at (202) 343-9077 or
Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. The procedures for annually allocating allowances from each NUSA to eligible units are set forth in the CSAPR regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NO
This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the first round of NUSA allowance allocations for the 2017 control periods. Generally, the allocation procedures call for each eligible unit to receive a first-round 2017 NUSA allocation equal to its 2016 emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to all eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis.
The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation calculations are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2017_NO
Each state worksheet also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2017 NUSA, (2) the sum of the first-round 2017 NUSA allowance allocations that will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2017 NUSA for use in second-round allocations to new units (or ultimately for allocation to existing units), again assuming there are no corrections to the data.
Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be emailed to the address identified in
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that allocations are subject to potential correction.
40 CFR 97.411(b), 97.511(b), 97.611(b), 97.711(b), and 97.811(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends the Rural Health Care (RHC) Program rule which defines “health care provider” to implement the provision of the Rural Healthcare Connectivity Act of 2016 amending the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) to include skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) amongst the list of health care providers eligible to receive support.
Effective June 21, 2017.
Regina Brown,
This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) in WC Docket No. 02-60; FCC 17-71, adopted on June 7, 2017, and released on June 8, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or at the following Internet address:
1. In this MO&O, we implement the Rural Healthcare Connectivity Act of 2016, which amends section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Act, to include SNFs amongst the list of health care providers eligible to receive RHC Program support. Specifically, we amend § 54.600(a) of the Commission's rules defining “health care provider” under the RHC Program to include SNFs as eligible health care providers.
2. In the 1996 Act, Congress limited the types of health care providers eligible to receive support. SNFs were not included as an eligible entity type. Following the 1996 Act, the Commission established the RHC Program implementing the provisions of the 1996 Act and adopting rules for the program, including § 54.600(a) of the Commission's rules, which defines “health care provider[s]” supported under our RHC support programs in a manner that mirrored the terms of section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Act. This definition did not include SNFs.
3. On June 22, 2016, the President signed legislation that included SNFs amongst the list of health care providers eligible to receive RHC Program support. We interpret this law as directing the Commission to include SNFs in all programs for which health care providers are otherwise eligible and therefore amend § 54.600(a) of the Commission's rules defining “health care provider” under the RHC Program to mirror the current statutory definition in 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(7)(B). We find that a notice and comment rule making proceeding in this matter is unnecessary because the rule modification flows from the direction provided in the Rural Healthcare Connectivity Act of 2016 to include SNFs within the existing RHC Program. Section 1.412(c) of the Commission's rules provides that rule changes may be adopted without prior notice where the Commission for good cause finds that notice and comment procedures are unnecessary, so long as the basis for the good cause finding is published with the rule changes. The final rule adopted in this MO&O does not involve discretionary action on our part, but rather simply effectuates the Act according to the specific terms set forth in the legislation, which became effective on December 19, 2016. Accordingly, we conclude that this change constitutes a ministerial, noncontroversial amendment to our rules and thus this action falls within the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act. We therefore forgo notice and comment in this limited context.
4. We also find good cause to make this rule change effective upon publication in the
2. Because approval has already been obtained for the addition of SNFs to the category of eligible health care providers pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, this document does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to PRA. 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
3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA) requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Because the implementation of this provision entails no exercise of our administrative discretion, notice and comment procedures are unnecessary and, therefore, the Final RFA does not apply.
4. The Commission will send a copy of this MO&O to Congress and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
5. Accordingly,
6.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 54 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 205, 214, and 254 unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(6) Rural health clinic;
(7) Skilled nursing facility; or
(8) Consortium of health care providers consisting of one or more entities described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (7) of this section.
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendments.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a document in the
Effective June 21, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
John Schauble, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or by email to
This is a summary of the Commission's
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 101 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
(s) * * *
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Publication of 2014 final theft data.
This document publishes the final data on thefts of model year (MY) 2014 passenger motor vehicles that occurred in calendar year (CY) 2014, including theft rates for existing passenger motor vehicle lines manufactured in model year (MY) 2014.
Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
NHTSA administers a program for reducing motor vehicle theft. The central feature of this program is the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 CFR part 541. The standard specifies performance requirements for inscribing and affixing vehicle identification numbers (VINs) onto certain major original equipment and replacement parts of high-theft lines of passenger motor vehicles.
The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from the most reliable source, accurate and timely theft data and publish the data for review and comment. To fulfill this statutory mandate, NHTSA has published theft data annually beginning with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill the section 33104(b)(4) mandate, this document reports the final theft data for CY 2014, the most recent calendar year for which data are available.
In calculating the 2014 theft rates, NHTSA followed the same procedures it used in calculating the MY 2013 theft rates. (For 2013 theft data calculations, see 80 FR 72929, November 23, 2015). As in all previous reports, NHTSA's data were based on information provided to NHTSA by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NCIC is a government system that receives vehicle theft information from nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies and other law enforcement authorities throughout the United States. The NCIC data also include reported thefts of self-insured and uninsured vehicles, not all of which are reported to other data sources.
The 2014 theft rate for each vehicle line was calculated by dividing the number of reported thefts of MY 2014 vehicles of that line stolen during calendar year 2014 by the total number of vehicles in that line manufactured for MY 2014, as reported to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The final 2014 theft data show a slight decrease in the vehicle theft rate when compared to the theft rate experienced in MY/CY 2013. The final theft rate for MY 2014 passenger vehicles stolen in calendar year 2014 decreased to 1.1512 thefts per thousand vehicles produced, a decrease of 0.43 percent from the rate of 1.1562 thefts per thousand vehicles experienced by MY 2013 vehicles in CY 2013.
For MY 2014 vehicles, out of a total of 235 vehicle lines, five lines had a theft rate higher than 3.5826 per thousand vehicles, the established median theft rate for MYs 1990/1991. (See 59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994). Of the five vehicle lines with a theft rate higher than 3.5826, four are passenger car lines, one is a multipurpose passenger vehicle line, and none are light-duty truck lines.
The MY 2014 theft rate reduction is consistent with the general decreasing trend of theft rates over the past several years as indicated by Figure 1. A statistical compilation of stolen vehicle data from various vehicle theft monitoring agencies show that passenger motor vehicle theft is trending downward. A similar decreasing trend in vehicle thefts was reported in the FBI 2014 Uniform Crime Report showing a 1.5% reduction in motor vehicle thefts (automobiles, trucks, buses and other vehicles) from 2013 to 2014. Overall, as indicated by Figure 1, theft rates have continued to show a downward trend since MY/CY 1993, with periods of very moderate increases from one year to the next.
On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, NHTSA published the preliminary theft rates for CY 2014 passenger motor vehicles in the
In its comment, Volkswagen informed the agency that the production volume listed for the Volkswagen Tiguan was incorrect. In response to this comment, the production volume for the Volkswagen has been corrected and the final theft data has been revised accordingly. As a result of the correction, the Volkswagen Tiguan previously ranked No. 38 with a theft rate of 1.7563 is now ranked No. 99 with a theft rate of 0.8068.
Further review of the preliminary theft list revealed that the numbering sequence of the vehicle lines was incorrect. Specifically, the listing erroneously omitted the sequence row for vehicle No. 234. The final theft data has been revised to reflect the correct numbering sequence. As a result of the changes in the numbering sequence, the theft data reflects 235 vehicles instead of 236 vehicles for MY 2014.
The following list represents NHTSA's final calculation of theft rates for all 2014 passenger motor vehicle lines. This list is intended to inform the public of calendar year 2014 motor vehicle thefts of model year 2014 vehicles and does not have any effect on the obligations of regulated parties under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, Theft Prevention.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for commercial snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS projects commercial landings for snowy grouper will reach the commercial annual catch limit (ACL) by June 22, 2017. Therefore, NMFS closes the commercial sector for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ on June 22, 2017, and it will remain closed until the start of the next fishing season on January 1, 2018. This closure is necessary to protect the snowy grouper resource.
This rule is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 22, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
Mary Vara, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The snapper-grouper fishery of the South Atlantic includes snowy grouper and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
The commercial ACL (commercial quota) for snowy grouper in the South Atlantic is 135,380 lb (61,407 kg), gutted weight, 159,749 lb (72,461 kg), round weight, for the current fishing year, January 1 through December 31, 2017, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(a)(1)(iii).
Under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1)(i), NMFS is required to close the commercial sector for snowy grouper for the remainder of the fishing year when the commercial quota is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS projects that commercial landings of South Atlantic snowy grouper, as estimated by the Science and Research Director, will reach the commercial quota by June 22, 2017. Accordingly, the commercial sector for South Atlantic snowy grouper is closed effective 12:01 a.m., local time, June 22, 2017, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2018.
The operator of a vessel with a valid commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper having snowy grouper on board must have landed and bartered, traded, or sold such snowy grouper prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 22, 2017. During the commercial closure, harvest and possession of snowy grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and possession limits, which are specified in § 622.187(b)(2)(ii) and (c)(1). Also during the commercial closure, the sale or purchase of snowy grouper taken from the EEZ is prohibited. The prohibition on sale or purchase does not apply to the sale or purchase of snowy grouper that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to 12:01 a.m., local time, June 22, 2017, and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor, as specified in § 622.190(c)(1)(i).
For a person on board a vessel for which a Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery has been issued, the bag and possession limits and the sale and purchase provisions of the commercial closure for snowy grouper would apply regardless of whether the fish are harvested in state or Federal waters, as specified in 50 CFR 622.190(c)(1)(ii).
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of snowy grouper and the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.193(b)(1)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.
This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to
For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments into the continental United States of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey. As a condition of entry, fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include grove registration, sanitation, and pest control measures; packinghouse registration and procedures designed to exclude quarantine pests; cold treatment; and procedures for packing, storing, and shipping the pomegranate fruit. In addition, consignments would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization of Turkey. This proposed rule would allow for the importation of fresh pomegranates from Turkey into the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of plant pests.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 21, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Tony Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2242.
The regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-77, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
Currently, the regulations do not authorize the importation into the continental United States of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Turkey to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercially produced pomegranate fruit (
The PRA, titled “Importation of Fresh Fruit of Pomegranate,
A quarantine pest is defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations as a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
Plant pest risk potentials associated with the importation of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey into the continental United States were derived by estimating the consequences and likelihood of introduction of each quarantine pest into the United States and ranking the pest risk potential as being high, medium, or low. As indicated in the above table, four of the quarantine pests are considered to have high pest risk potential, and five, medium pest risk potential.
Based on the findings of the PRA, APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection would mitigate the risks posed by these quarantine pests. These measures are listed in the RMD and are used as the basis for the requirements included in this proposed rule. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey into the continental United States subject to a systems approach. Requirements of the systems approach, which would be added to the regulations as a new § 319.56-78, are discussed in the following sections.
General requirements for importing fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey into the continental United States would be listed in proposed § 319.56-78(a)(1). The NPPO of Turkey would be required to provide an operational workplan to APHIS detailing systems approach activities, including inspections, monitoring, and related tasks that the NPPO of Turkey will carry out to meet the proposed requirements. An operational workplan is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program, officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, foreign commercial entities, that specifies in detail the phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or export of a specific commodity. Operational workplans apply only to the signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for the day-to-day operations of specific import/export programs. Operational workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is responsible for dealing with those issues. If the operational workplan is approved, APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO of Turkey in monitoring and auditing the systems approach implementation. In addition, the NPPO of Turkey would be required to enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS in accordance with § 319.56-6 to cover our monitoring and auditing costs.
Proposed § 319.56-78(a)(2) would require that all places of production and packinghouses in Turkey participating in the program to export pomegranate fruit to the continental United States be registered with and approved by the NPPO of Turkey. Proposed § 319.56-78(a)(3) would require that the places of production meet the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e). Under proposed § 319.56-78(a)(4), the fruit would have to be packed for export to the continental United States in a packinghouse that meets the requirements of paragraph (g). Proposed § 319.56-78(a)(5) would require that the place of production where the pomegranates were grown remain identifiable for each consignment when the fruit leaves the grove, at the packinghouse, and throughout the export process. Proposed § 319.56-78(a)(6) would require that the final release of the fruit into the continental United States be contingent upon compliance with required safeguards, treatments, and inspection included in the proposed section.
Proposed § 319.56-78(b) would require that fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey be imported into the continental United States in commercial consignments only. Noncommercial shipments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control.
Commercial consignments, as defined in § 319.56-2 of the regulations, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.
Under proposed § 319.56-78(c)(1), the NPPO of Turkey would be responsible for verifying that registered grove and packinghouse mitigation practices are fulfilling all requirements under the systems approach. Details of systems approach requirements for the places of production and packinghouses would be included in the operational workplan.
APHIS may monitor and inspect the packinghouses and places of production. If APHIS or the NPPO of Turkey were to find that a place of production or a packinghouse was not in compliance with the regulations, pomegranates from that place of production or packinghouse would not be eligible for export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO of Turkey conducted an investigation and implemented appropriate remedial actions.
Under proposed § 319.56-78(c)(2), any personnel hired to conduct inspections would have to be accredited and supervised by the NPPO of Turkey.
Proposed § 319.56-78(c)(3) would require that the NPPO of Turkey retain all forms and documents related to export program activities in places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, upon request, provide them to APHIS for review. Forms and documents would be specified in the operational workplan.
Under paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56-78, the NPPO of Turkey would be responsible for ensuring that registered groves are practicing proper field sanitation, with places of production kept free of plant debris and fallen fruit. These sanitation measures are essential components of good agricultural practices and mainstays of commercial fruit production.
In addition, the NPPO of Turkey would be required under proposed § 319.56-78(e)(1) to issue pest control guidelines to growers that will mitigate risks posed by the quarantine pests listed in the PRA. Details of control measure requirements, including treatment with fungicides, insecticides, and other requirements, would be included in the operational workplan.
Although pomegranate fruit is not a primary host of
Specific post-harvest requirements listed in paragraph (f) of proposed
Packinghouse requirements, listed in paragraph (g) of proposed § 319.56-78 and detailed in the operational workplan, are intended to prevent insect infestation of harvested fruit during processing and packing in registered packinghouses. Packinghouses in which pomegranates are packed for export to the continental United States would have to be able to exclude quarantine pests. During the time the packinghouse is used to pack and export pomegranates to the continental United States, the packinghouse would not be able to pack pomegranates destined for other countries or domestic markets.
Pomegranates would have to be visually inspected at the packinghouse in order to cull damaged and deformed fruit. The fruit would have to be washed, brushed, disinfested, and submerged in surfactant prior to cold treatment. During the time that a packinghouse is packing pomegranates for export to the continental United States, the packing lines would have to be cleared of all other articles and plant debris. Fruits destined for the United States must be stored in a compartment separate from any other fruits or plant articles as long as they remain at the packinghouse.
Boxes containing the packed pomegranate fruit would have to be marked with the identity of the packing facility and origin of the fruit and clearly marked as destined for export to the continental United States. Pomegranates would have to be packed within 24 hours of harvest into pest-proof cartons or containers or covered with pest-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for transport to the continental United States. Fresh pomegranates for export to the continental United States would have to be held in a cold storage facility while awaiting export. If any fruit from unregistered production sites are stored in the same facility, the pomegranates would have to be stored in a separate compartment from that of other fruit. These safeguards would have to remain intact until arrival of the consignment in the continental United States.
These packinghouse procedures, combined with proper grove sanitation as noted above, are effective at mitigating against several of the high- and medium-risk quarantine pests listed in the PRA. Symptoms of infestation by
Under proposed § 319.56-78(h), all shipments of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey to the continental United States would have to undergo cold treatment
Under proposed § 319.56-78(i), a sample of pomegranate fruit jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Turkey would have to be inspected in Turkey by the NPPO of Turkey following post-harvest processing and prior to shipping. The sample would have to be visually inspected for the quarantine pests and a portion of the fruit would have to be cut open for additional inspection for internal pests. If any quarantine pests are found, the entire consignment of pomegranate fruit would be prohibited from importation into the continental United States. Details of inspection requirements would be included in the operational workplan.
APHIS would inspect consignments of fresh pomegranate fruit from Turkey at the U.S. port of entry after the required cold treatment. Fruit presented for inspection would have to be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each consignment of fruit that specify the place of production in which the fruit was produced and the packinghouse in which the fruit was processed. This identification would have to be maintained with the consignment until the fruit is released for entry into the continental United States.
Under proposed § 319.56-78(j), each consignment of pomegranate fruit would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Turkey.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this proposed rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of pomegranate from Turkey into the continental United States. Pomegranate fruit is not currently permitted to enter the United States from Turkey due to nine quarantine pests. This regulatory change proposes risk mitigation options, including the application of APHIS-approved treatment and post-harvest
The conditions under which APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of pomegranate from Turkey include: Only commercial shipments of pomegranates may be imported; all growers must be registered with the NPPO of Turkey; the pomegranates must undergo cold treatment in Turkey, in transit, or on first arrival in the United States; and prescribed practices for harvesting, packing, cleaning, and storage must be followed. Control measures in the field and packinghouse must be followed, which may include fungicide, insecticide, and disinfestation treatments.
If 100 percent of Turkey's exports at 2008 levels were diverted to the United States, this would have equaled about 6.5 percent of domestic production. If the other imports are assumed to be pomegranates and included as part of the total domestic market, then 100 percent of Turkey's exports would equal about 9 percent of the market. It is very unlikely that Turkey would be willing or able to divert 100 percent of its exports to the U.S. market given its close proximity to its existing export markets, but in the event that it did, this quantity would still be unlikely to have a significant impact on the existing U.S. market.
Based on our review of available information, APHIS does not expect the proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on small entities. We welcome the submission of comments and additional data regarding the potential economic effects of this proposed action.
This proposed rule would allow fresh pomegranates to be imported into the continental United States from Turkey, subject to a systems approach. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding fresh pomegranates imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh pomegranates are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to allow the importation of fresh pomegranates from Turkey into the continental United States subject to a systems approach. As a condition of entry, pomegranates from Turkey would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments; registration of production sites and packinghouses; grove sanitation and pest control practices; washing, brushing, and treatment with surface disinfectant; and inspection for quarantine pests by the NPPO of Turkey.
Pomegranates from Turkey would also be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. This action would allow for the importation of pomegranates from Turkey into the United States while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
Allowing fresh pomegranates to be imported into the continental United States from Turkey will require information collection activities, including phytosanitary certificates, production site and packinghouse registration, training, box marking, recordkeeping, an operational workplan, and a trust fund agreement.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh pomegranates (
(a)
(2) All places of production and packinghouses that participate in the export program must be approved by and registered with the NPPO of Turkey.
(3) The fruit must be grown at places of production that meet the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section.
(4) The fruit must be packed for export to the continental United States in a packinghouse that meets the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section.
(5) The place of production where the pomegranates were grown must remain identifiable when the fruit leaves the grove, at the packinghouse, and throughout the export process.
(6) Release of the fruit into the continental United States will be contingent upon compliance with the safeguarding, treatment, and inspection requirements of this section.
(b)
(c)
(2) Any personnel conducting inspections must be accredited and supervised by the NPPO of Turkey.
(3) The NPPO of Turkey must retain all forms and documents related to export program activities in places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as requested, provide them to APHIS for review. Forms and documents are specified in the operational workplan.
(d)
(e)
(2) The NPPO of Turkey must ensure that registered growers are using chemical control measures in the groves that effectively mitigate the risk of
(f)
(g)
(2) Pomegranates must be visually inspected at the packinghouse in order to cull damaged and deformed fruit. The fruit must be washed, brushed, disinfested, and submerged in surfactant prior to cold treatment. During the time that a packinghouse is packing pomegranates for export to the continental United States, the packing lines must be cleared of all other articles and plant debris and the pomegranates must be stored in a compartment separate from any other fruits or plant articles as long as they remain at the packinghouse.
(3) Boxes containing the packed pomegranate fruit must be marked with the identity of the packing facility and origin of the fruit and clearly marked as destined for export to the continental United States. Pomegranates must be packed within 24 hours of harvest into pest-proof cartons or containers or covered with pest-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for transport to the continental United States. Fresh pomegranates for export to the continental United States must be held in a cold storage facility while awaiting export. If any fruit from unregistered production sites are stored in the same facility, the pomegranates must be stored in a separate compartment from that of other fruit. These safeguards must remain intact until arrival of the consignment in the continental United States.
(h)
(i)
(2) Fruit presented for inspection at a U.S. port of entry must be identified in the shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit that specify the place of production in which the fruit was produced and the packinghouse in which the fruit was processed. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is released for entry into the continental United States.
(j)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruit and vegetable regulations to allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the tree tomatoes would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest-control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the national plant protection organization of Ecuador. This action would allow the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador while continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 21, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Ms. Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352.
The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-77, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador has requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow tree tomatoes from Ecuador to be imported into the continental United States.
In evaluating Ecuador's request, we prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the PRA and RMD may be obtained from the person listed under
The PRA, titled “Importation of fresh tree tomato (
The PRA derives plant pest risk potential for these pests by estimating the likelihood of the introduction of each pest into the continental United States through the importation of tree tomatoes from Ecuador.
The PRA considers two pests to have high pest risk potential (
Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to allow the importation of commercial consignments of tree tomatoes from Ecuador into the continental United States, subject to a systems approach. Requirements of the systems approach, which would be added to the regulations as new § 319.56-78, are discussed in the following sections.
Proposed paragraph (a) of § 319.56-78 would set forth general requirements for the NPPO of Ecuador and for growers and packers producing the tree tomatoes for export to the continental United States.
Paragraph (a)(1) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to provide an operational workplan to APHIS that
If the operational workplan is approved, APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO of Ecuador in monitoring and auditing the systems approach implementation. Such monitoring could involve site visits by APHIS personnel.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would require tree tomatoes intended for export to the continental United States to be grown by places of production registered with the NPPO of Ecuador. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require the tree tomatoes to be packed for export to the continental United States in pest-exclusionary packinghouses registered with the NPPO of Ecuador.
Registration of places of production and packinghouses with the NPPO of Ecuador would ensure that the NPPO exercises oversight of these locations and that the places of production and packinghouses continuously follow the provisions of the export program. It would also facilitate traceback in the event that tree tomatoes from Ecuador are determined to be infested with quarantine pests.
Proposed paragraph (a)(4) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to maintain all forms and documents related to export program activities in registered places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 year and provide them to APHIS upon request. Such forms and documents would include (but would not be limited to) records regarding fruit fly trapping in registered places of production and records regarding pest detections in registered places of production and registered packinghouses. Based on APHIS' review of the records, we may monitor places of production and packinghouses as we deem warranted.
Proposed paragraph (a)(5) would require the identity of each lot of tree tomato from Ecuador destined for export to the continental United States to be maintained throughout the export process, from the place of production to the release for entry in the continental United States. The operational workplan would have to describe the means of identification used that allows the lot to be traced back to its place of production. This requirement would facilitate traceback in the event that quarantine pests are discovered in a lot of tree tomatoes destined for export to the United States. This, in turn, would help ensure that timely remedial measures are taken to address the plant pest risk at the place of production and preclude the further export of infested fruit from that place of production.
Proposed paragraph (a)(6) states that tree tomatoes from Ecuador may be imported in commercial consignments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone to infestation because the commodity is often ripe to overripe and is often grown with little to no pest control. Commercial consignments, as defined within the regulations, are consignments that an inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to: quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer.
Proposed paragraph (a)(7) would provide that lots of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States must be safeguarded during movement from registered places of production to registered packinghouses, and from registered packinghouses to arrival at the port of entry into the continental United States as specified by the operational workplan. Such safeguarding could include the use of pest-proof screens or tarpaulins to cover the lots during transit, or other similar measures approved by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador.
Our systems approach would require certain measures to take place at the registered places of production. Proposed paragraph (b) of § 319.56-78 would contain these requirements and measures.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) would require that registered places of production of tree tomatoes destined for export to the continental United States be determined by APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador to be free from
Establishment of fruit fly pest free places of production, in combination with other measures, obviates the need for post-harvest commodity treatments to achieve phytosanitary security. APHIS has only in rare instances intercepted fruit flies in tree tomatoes. Although tree tomatoes are considered to be poor hosts to
Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would require registered places of production to remove fallen tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan. It would also prohibit fallen fruit from being included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export. Fallen fruit are especially susceptible to quarantine pests.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) would require fields at registered places of production to be inspected by the NPPO of Ecuador at least once during the growing season for Tamarillo mosaic
Tamarillo mosaic virus is transmitted primarily by contact between mechanical inoculations and grafting, but cannot be transmitted between plants or by seeds. Tamarillo mosaic virus reduces fruit yields and causes disfiguring blotches on the skin of the tree tomato fruit, which lowers the value of the fruit. Visual inspections at registered places of production for Tamarillo mosaic virus will provide the appropriate level of protection for the United States.
Proposed paragraph (b)(4) would require the NPPO of Ecuador to visit and inspect registered places of production monthly, starting 60 days before harvest and continuing throughout the shipping season, for signs of infestation and to allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. The NPPO of Ecuador must also certify to APHIS that registered places of production have in place effective fruit fly trapping programs and control guidelines to reduce pest populations.
Proposed paragraph (b)(5) would provide that if APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador determined that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements of the regulations, the place of production would be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.
Proposed paragraph (c) of § 319.56-78 would set forth requirements for mitigation measures that would have to occur at registered packinghouses.
Proposed paragraph (c)(1) would require that, while a registered packinghouse is in use for packing tree tomatoes for export to the continental United States, the packinghouse can only accept tree tomatoes that are from registered places of production that have been produced in accordance with proposed § 319.56-78. Tree tomatoes from other places of production may be produced under conditions that are less stringent than those of this proposed rule, and may therefore be a pathway for introduction of quarantine pests into the packinghouses.
Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would require that tree tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin within 24 hours of harvest. These safeguards would have to remain intact until the tree tomatoes arrive in the United States, or the consignment would not be allowed to enter the United States. These requirements collectively would aid in preventing the tree tomatoes from becoming infested with plant pests during, or subsequent, to packing.
Proposed paragraph (c)(3) would require that all openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the tree tomatoes are packed.
Proposed paragraph (d) of § 319.56-78 would require the NPPO of Ecuador or officials authorized by the NPPO of Ecuador to visually inspect a biometric sample of tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan following post-harvest processing. The sample would have to be visually inspected for
Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would state that if
Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would state that if Tamarillo mosaic virus is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation into the United States.
Proposed paragraph (d)(3) would state that if
Proposed paragraph (e) of § 319.56-78 would require that each consignment of fresh tree tomato fruit from Ecuador be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Ecuador containing an additional declaration that the tomatoes were produced in accordance with the requirements § 319.56-78, and have been inspected and found free of
Under the general conditions for the importation of fruits and vegetables in § 319.56-3, each consignment of tree tomatoes would be subject to further inspection at the port entry into the United States.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Further, because this proposed rule is not significant, it does not trigger the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
The tree tomato is not grown in the United States, so there would be no impacts of the proposed rule for U.S. producers. In 2014, the U.S. imported an estimated 130,000 pounds of this fruit from various countries. Based on conversations with Ecuadoran officials, and Ecuador's tree tomato production capabilities and established markets, we estimate that 10 percent or less of current exports would be diverted to the United States. Assuming an average market price of $3 per pound, based on the import price for tree tomato from New Zealand, and a quantity of at most 15 shipments or 11,250 pounds, the value of tree tomato imports from Ecuador may reach approximately $34,000 annually.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would allow fresh tree tomato fruit to be imported into the continental United States from Ecuador. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations regarding tree tomato fruit imported under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is proposing to amend the fruit and vegetable regulations to allow the importation of tree tomato from Ecuador into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, the tree tomatoes would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that would include requirements for importation in commercial consignments, registration and monitoring of places of production, field monitoring and pest-control practices, trapping, and inspection for quarantine pests by the NPPO of Ecuador.
Implementing this rule will require an operational workplan, production site and packinghouse registrations, recordkeeping, identification, trapping, inspections, and phytosanitary certificates.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance 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. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Fresh tree tomatoes (
(a)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(2) Places of production must remove fallen tree tomato fruit in accordance with the operational workplan. Fallen fruit may not be included in field containers of fruit brought to the packinghouse to be packed for export.
(3) The NPPO of Ecuador must inspect fields at registered places of production at least once during the growing season for Tamarillo mosaic virus. Sites must be determined by the NPPO to be free of the virus as a result of these inspections.
(4) Starting 60 days before harvest and continuing throughout the shipping season, the NPPO of Ecuador must visit and inspect registered places of production monthly for signs of infestation. The NPPO of Ecuador must allow APHIS to monitor these inspections. The NPPO of Ecuador must also certify to APHIS that registered places of production have effective fruit fly trapping programs and control guidelines in place to reduce pest populations.
(5) If APHIS or the NPPO of Ecuador determines that a registered place of production has failed to follow the requirements in this paragraph (b), the place of production will be excluded from the export program until APHIS and the NPPO of Ecuador jointly agree that the place of production has taken appropriate remedial measures to address the plant pest risk.
(c)
(2) Tree tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, within 24 hours of harvest. These safeguards must remain intact until the tree tomatoes arrive in the United States, or the consignment will not be allowed to enter the United States.
(3) All openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered by screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from entering. The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the tree tomatoes are packed.
(d)
(1) If
(2) If Tamarillo mosaic virus is found, the entire lot of fruit will be prohibited from importation into the United States.
(3) If a single larva of
(e)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a number of rubber bull gear (RBG) wheels installed in the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) were manufactured using an incorrect material specification. This proposed AD would require replacement of the affected RBG wheels. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-22, dated June 24, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:
An inspection by the vendor revealed that a number of Rubber Bull Gear (RBG) Wheels installed in the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) of the CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, CL-600-2D24 and CL-600-2E25 aeroplanes were manufactured from the incorrect material specification. The use of the incorrect material specification has a direct impact on the RBG Wheels life limit. The teeth of these non-conforming RBG Wheels may experience premature wear out and if not corrected, this condition could result in difficulties in maneuvering the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates replacement of the RBGs whose wheels have been made using an incorrect material specification.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016. This service information describes
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 544 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
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 7, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc., airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, equipped with horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) part number 8489-7 or 8489-7R.
(1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes.
(2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
(3) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
(4) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.
This AD was prompted by a report that a number of rubber bull gear (RBG) wheels installed in the HSTA were manufactured using an incorrect material specification. We are issuing this AD to prevent premature wear-out of the teeth of the RBG wheels, which could cause difficulties in maneuvering the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine whether the serial number (S/N) of the installed HSTA is listed in paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016. If the S/N of the installed HSTA is not listed in paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016, no further action is required by this AD, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number of the HSTA can be conclusively determined from that review.
For any HSTA with a S/N listed in paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016: Within the compliance times specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, replace the affected HSTA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, dated April 26, 2016.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an HSTA having part number 8489-7 or 8489-7R, with a S/N listed in paragraph 1.A, “Effectivity,” of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-072, Revision A, dated October 26, 2016, unless the S/N has a suffix “C” marked on the identification plate adjacent to the S/N.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-22, dated June 24, 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 Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax 514-855-7401; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports that operation of fuselage doors was interrupted due to corrosion in certain door roller bearings. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed inspection of the bearings for corrosion, and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-18, dated June 20, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:
A number of translating fuselage door operation interruptions has been reported. In one case, the Aft Service door could not be opened. It was found that the door lift latch bearings had corroded, which prevented the door from opening.
The translating doors are classified as emergency exits. The inability to open an emergency exit could inhibit evacuation in the event of an emergency. This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate a one-time inspection of the translating door bearings to check for corrosion, replace bearings if required, and apply Corrosion Inhibiting Compound (CIC).
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-52-88, dated April 14, 2016. This service information describes procedures for identification of corrosion in fuselage door bearings, replacement if necessary, and CIC application. 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 designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 143 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:
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 August 7, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001 and 4003 through 4488 inclusive, except those incorporating Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5200050.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.
This AD was prompted by reports of interrupted operation of translating fuselage doors caused by corrosion in the door lift and latch shaft roller bearings. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct bearing corrosion and prevent door operation interruptions that could inhibit safe evacuation of the airplane in an emergency.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs earlier, do a detailed visual inspection of all translating fuselage door lift and latch shaft roller bearings for signs of corrosion, damaged seals, and loss of lubricant; replace any corroded bearings; and apply corrosion-inhibiting compound (CIC); in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-88, dated April 14, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-85, dated September 23, 2015; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-52-85, Revision A, dated January 22, 2016.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-18, dated June 20, 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 Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by the determination that new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related tasks are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and to implement CPCP related tasks. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 7, 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 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1112; 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 Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI states:
The airworthiness limitations and/or certification maintenance instructions for SAAB SF340A and 340B, which are
Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
Recently, Saab AB, Aeronautics issued SAAB SF340A and 340B ALM Revision 1, mainly to add new inspection tasks for the Main Landing Gear drag brace support fitting, and to implement Corrosion Prevention and Control Program related tasks.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. The service information describes airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks. 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 that if there are findings from the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective actions must be accomplished in accordance with SAAB maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this proposed AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been approved by the FAA.
When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part of their type design.
To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type design.
However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier AD.
This proposed AD therefore would apply to Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before the date of approval of the ALS revision identified in this proposed AD. Operators of airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data sheet.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 87 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 August 7, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or before December 1, 2016.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by the determination that new inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related tasks are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks, specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. The compliance time for the initial airworthiness limitation tasks is at the applicable compliance time specified in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Linköping, Sweden; telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by reducing a certain compliance time, adding repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected fuel valves, and providing corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 7, 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 SNPRM, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; 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
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN 235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes, and Model C-295 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Since we issued the NPRM, an additional report of a fuel leak in a motorized cross-feed valve has resulted in the need for a change to the compliance time for the initial inspection, the addition of repetitive inspections and operational checks, and corrective action if necessary.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017, (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes. The MCAI states:
Leakage of a motorised cross-feed fuel valve Part Number (P/N) 7923227F was reported on a CN-235-100M aeroplane. The leakage was observed through the valve electrical connectors and detected during accomplishment of a functional check in accordance with task 28.007 of the CN-235 Maintenance Review Board Report (MRB CN-235-PV01). Identical motorised fuel valves are installed on civilian CN-235 and C-295 aeroplanes, as cross-feed, shut-off and defueling valves.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of a motorised fuel valve and consequent improper functioning of the fuel system or, in case of
To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus Defence & Space (D&S) issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT)-CN235-28-0001 and AOT-C295-28-0001 to provide inspection instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2016-0071 to require a one-time inspection of the affected motorised fuel valves and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new occurrences of fuel leakage involving the affected motorised fuel valves were reported and Airbus D&S issued Revision 1 of AOT-CN235-28-0001 and Revision 1 of AOT-C295-28-0001 to introduce repetitive inspections and operational checks of the affected motorised fuel valves.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0071, which is superseded, and introduces repetitive inspections and operational checks [and corrective action, if necessary] of the affected fuel valves.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus Defense and Space S.A. has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016; and AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, dated September 27, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive inspections, replacement of the motorized fuel valves, and performing operational checks and corrective actions on affected motorized fuel valves. 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
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this proposed AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
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.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
We estimate that this SNPRM affects 14 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 these actions:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions for the operational check specified in this proposed AD.
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 AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 7, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-100, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes; and Model C-295 airplanes; certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by leakage of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which was detected during accomplishment of a functional check. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct leaks in a motorized cross-feed fuel valve, which could lead to failure of the fuel valve and consequent improper fuel system functioning or, in case of the presence of an ignition source, an airplane fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within the applicable compliance time defined in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Do an initial general visual inspection of each motorized cross-feed fuel valve having part number (P/N) 7923227F for the presence of fuel on the electrical connectors and inside the receptacles, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight hours.
(1) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated 6,000 flight cycles or more since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 30 flight cycles or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(2) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD, have accumulated less than 6,000 flight cycles since first flight of the airplane: Do the inspection within 300 flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any leaking of a motorized cross-feed fuel valve having P/N 7923227F is detected: Before the next flight, replace the affected fuel valve with a serviceable part, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable. A serviceable part is defined as a part that is not defective; it could be a used or new part. Replacement of a motorized fuel valve on an airplane does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane.
Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, accomplish an operational check of each motorized fuel valve P/N 7923227F, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.
If, during any operational check, as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, any discrepancy is detected, as described in Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable: Before further flight, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) to obtain instructions for corrective actions, and within the compliance time indicated in those instructions accomplish the corrective actions accordingly.
As of the effective date of this AD, replacement of a motorized fuel valve having P/N 7923227F with a serviceable part on an airplane is allowed, provided that, within 30 flight cycles or 30 days, whichever occurs first after installation, the part passes an inspection done in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, Revision 1, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, Revision 1, both dated September 27, 2016, as applicable.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-CN235-28-0001, or Airbus Defense and Space AOT AOT-C295-28-0001, both dated February 19, 2016, as applicable.
At the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, report all inspection results to Airbus Defense and Space Technical Assistance Center (AMTAC); telephone +34 91 600 79 99; email
(1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the inspection.
(2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 60 days after the effective date of this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0004, dated January 9, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Defense and Space Services/Engineering Support, Avenida de Aragón 404, 28022 Madrid, Spain; telephone +34 91 585 55 84; fax +34 91 585 31 27; email
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; notification of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures in Clinical Investigations under our regulations—Questions and Answers.” The draft guidance provides guidance to sponsors, clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), contract research organizations (CROs), and other interested parties on the use of electronic records and electronic signatures under our regulations in clinical investigations of medical products. The draft guidance expands upon recommendations in the guidance for industry entitled “Part 11, Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures—Scope and Application” issued in August 2003 (referred to as the 2003 part 11 guidance) for recommendations that pertain to FDA-regulated clinical investigations conducted under our regulations.
Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by August 21, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Cheryl Grandinetti, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 3348, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-2500; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911; or Irfan Khan, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 3563, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-7100.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Use of Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures in Clinical Investigations under 21 CFR Part 11—Questions and Answers.” The draft guidance provides guidance to sponsors, clinical investigators, IRBs, CROs, and other interested parties on the use of electronic records and electronic signatures under part 11 in clinical investigations of medical products. The draft guidance thus expands upon recommendations in the 2003 part 11 guidance for recommendations that pertain to FDA-regulated clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812 and is limited to the scope and application of part 11 requirements to such clinical investigations.
Since 2003, advances in electronic technology have expanded the uses and capabilities of electronic systems in clinical investigations. In addition, electronic systems and technologies are used and managed in novel ways, services are shared or contracted between organizations in new ways, and electronic data flow between parties is more efficient and more prevalent. The standards and capabilities of electronic systems have improved, and features—such as audit trails, automated date-and-time stamps, appropriate validation, and the ability to generate copies and retain records—are standard components of many electronic systems.
FDA's overall approach to the 2003 part 11 guidance was to provide a narrow and practical interpretation of part 11 requirements. FDA continues to support and promote such a narrow and practical interpretation in the draft guidance, including our intent to exercise enforcement discretion regarding specific part 11 provisions for validation, audit trails, record retention, and record copying. FDA reminds sponsors, however, that records must still be maintained or submitted in accordance with the underlying predicate rules, and the Agency can take regulatory action for noncompliance with such predicate rules. In addition, FDA continues to encourage sponsors and other regulated entities to use a risk-based approach, as introduced in the 2003 part 11 guidance and further described in the draft guidance, when deciding to validate electronic systems, implement audit trails, or archive required records for clinical investigations. The draft guidance clarifies and expands upon recommendations for applying and implementing part 11 requirements, as appropriate, in the current environment of electronic systems used in clinical investigations.
The draft guidance discusses the following: (1) Procedures that may be followed to help ensure that electronic records and electronic signatures meet FDA requirements and are considered to be trustworthy, reliable, and generally equivalent to paper records and handwritten signatures executed on paper, and (2) the use of a risk-based approach when deciding to validate electronic systems, implement audit trails for electronic records, and archive records that are pertinent to clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on the use of electronic records and electronic signatures for FDA-regulated clinical investigations conducted under parts 312 and 812. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are found in regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This draft guidance pertains to sponsors, clinical investigators, IRBs, CROs, and other interested parties who use electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic systems in FDA-regulated clinical investigations and who send certain information to FDA or others or who keep certain records and make them available to FDA inspectors. The collections of information in part 11 have been approved under OMB control
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice of proposed installation Interpretative Bulletin I-1-17.
The purpose of this proposed Interpretative Bulletin (IB) is to provide guidance for designing and installing manufactured home foundations in areas subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing, in accordance with the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, wherever soil conditions are susceptible to frost heave. Specifically, this guidance is being provided for designing and installing manufactured home foundation systems in areas where frost susceptible seasonally frozen ground conditions are encountered and when footings do not extend below the frost depth at the site. These types of foundation systems include monolithic slab systems, “frost-protected shallow foundations” (FPSF)—insulated foundations, and alternative foundation systems that include foundation variations termed by industry as frost free footing systems or frost free foundations (FFF). Guidance is also being provided in this interpretative bulletin for installing manufactured home foundations, when non-frost susceptible soil conditions are available at the site to protect foundations against the effects of frost heave.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this Interpretative Bulletin to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.
To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the rule.
Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-6409 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the toll free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8389.
The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) as amended in 2000 authorizes the Department to establish Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards (Installation Standards) and establish an installation program to enforce those Installation Standards. The Installation Standards are at 24 CFR part 3285, and installation in freezing temperature areas is covered at § 3285.312(b). Section 604(a)(3) of the Act as amended in 2000 also created the Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC). Section 604(b)(3) of the Act directs HUD to provide the MHCC with an opportunity to review any HUD proposed Interpretative Bulletin and to provide written comments to the Department for a period of up to 120 days.
Frost-protected shallow foundations have been successfully used both domestically and internationally in residential and commercial applications for over 50 years as a means to avoid deeper and more costly foundation systems. However, as a result of recent problems and inquiries related to the proper design, use, and installation of
The study and resulting report found some key factors needed for long-term and consistent success require special considerations that are often neglected, particularly for FFF designs and installations that rely on well-drained and non-frost susceptible soil conditions. These factors include appropriately engineered installation details, site investigation practices, fulfillment of responsibilities by all parties associated with manufactured home installation, and verification procedures to ensure that important design conditions are actually being achieved in practice. Accordingly, this Interpretative Bulletin was developed for the purpose of clarifying requirements and providing practical guidance for the manufactured housing industry when designing or setting foundations for manufactured homes in locations subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing.
HUD also indicated at the October 26th meeting of the MHCC, that it would consider any comments received from the MHCC on the report and scheduled a teleconference on November 28, 2016, with the Regulatory Subcommittee of the MHCC and with the MHCC on December 12, 2016, to receive feedback and recommendations from the subcommittee and MHCC. As a result of those discussions, the Regulatory Subcommittee recommended that HUD draft an Interpretative Bulletin for the December 12, 2016, teleconference with the full MHCC, taking into consideration the comments from the Regulatory Subcommittee teleconference and subsequent comments from the MHCC. A large part of the discussion focused on what constitutes acceptable engineering practice. Some members of the subcommittee expressed concerns on whether the SEI/ASCE 32-01 (ASCE 32) Standard should exclusively define accepted engineering practice or if other engineering alternatives should be allowed. During the December 12, 2016, conference call with the MHCC, the committee developed and approved the following recommendations and comments to its draft Interpretative Bulletin. These comments were also approved by a subsequent letter ballot. The ballot results were provided to HUD by the MHCC's Administering Organization (AO) on January 23, 2017. HUD's response to each of the points raised by the MHCC is as follows:
1. Tone of the IB needs to be more positive.
HUD Response: A statement has been added above to indicate that frost protected shallow foundations have been successfully used both domestically and abroad for than 50 years.
2. The focus of the IB should be to inform and educate.
HUD Response. HUD believes that the IB focus is both informative and provides education to all respective participants in the installation process.
3. The IB should focus on compliance with 3285.
HUD Response: The guidance in the IB does focus on both foundation design guidelines and compliance with the provisions for foundations in freezing temperature areas in 3285.312(b) of the Model Installation Standards.
4. The IB should be simplified (too lengthy).
HUD Response: HUD does not agree as the guidance cannot be further simplified in this proposed IB, since it is both practical and technical and, in general, provides a recipe for compliance with the Model Installation Standards.
5. FFF definition and FPSF definition.
HUD Response: A definition has been added for a Frost Protected Shallow Foundation (FPSF). However, as there is no generally recognized definition of a frost free foundation (FFF), HUD is requesting comments from the public on a suitable technical definition and has reserved a space in the IB for a definition of the term.
6. Clarify site specific foundation.
HUD Response: A site specific foundation means a foundation system that has been designed for a specific site.
7. Target audience should be installers, local jurisdiction, regulators, and manufacturers.
HUD Response: HUD agrees and focused the four options in the IB on those entities and organizations.
8. The problem doesn't seem to appear in all states and how to solve that problem.
HUD Response: Comments are being requested on other verifiable strategies that may not be addressed in this IB that have been effective and successfully used in other states.
9. Ensure additional cost are not incurred due to IB.
HUD Response: This IB has been developed to clarify the intent of the standards with technical concepts that will avoid costly foundation and structural repairs due to frost heave.
10. Reference to actual designs and specific engineering language in the IB should be removed.
HUD Response: Reference to actual designs has been removed from the IB. However, it remains necessary to utilize some engineering terminology to explain certain aspects of the foundation options contained in this IB.
11. Ensure IB doesn't exceed reasonable accepted engineering practice as required in § 3285.312(b)(2).
HUD Response: HUD believes that all aspects and options contained in this IB conform to acceptable engineering practice.
12. Remove reference to the SEBA report from the IB.
HUD Response: HUD agrees and has taken out the SEBA report.
13. Remove Local Authority Having Jurisdiction (LAHJ) where the plan approval is not required and in HUD administered states (§ 3286.3, HUD administered installation program) from the IB.
HUD Response: HUD does not agree with this recommendation as an LAHJ can both require plan approval and establish provisions which exceed the requirements of HUD's Model Installation Standards in states where HUD administers the installation program.
The MHCC also provided HUD with the specific suggested text revisions to the Interpretative Bulletin. The MHCC suggested revisions are available at
HUD has considered the above recommendations and comments from the MHCC and included them where it deemed appropriate in the text of the Interpretative Bulletin.
This guidance is being issued in response to numerous requests, inquiries, and questions regarding how to comply with HUD's requirements for foundations in freezing temperature areas, in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.312(b) of the Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, when footings do not extend below the frost depth at the site. Engineered foundations designs such as monolithic slab systems (§ 3282.312(b)(2)) placed on a layer of well drained undisturbed ground or fill material that is not susceptible to frost and frost protected shallow foundations (FPSF), which are insulated foundations (§ 3282.312(b)(3)) that rely on insulation to prevent ground freezing as well as other alternative foundation systems including industry termed “frost free foundations” have great appeal and potential in freezing temperature areas as a cost-effective means of installing manufactured homes on seasonally-frozen ground. Understandably, their use has been promoted and increased in recent years as a means for reducing manufactured housing installation costs when compared to using conventional or proprietary foundation support systems in freezing temperature areas. However, some key factors important to their long-term and consistent success require special considerations that are often neglected, particularly for FFF designs and installations. These factors include appropriately engineered installation details, site investigation practices, and verification procedures to ensure that important design conditions are actually being achieved in practice.
Important factors or design considerations in any frost-protected foundation include:
• Clarity of technical requirements;
• definite criteria for determining soil frost susceptibility and soil moisture sub-surface drainage conditions; and
• guidance on water table depth to determine if the site is suitably well drained.
In addition, for foundations being placed on non-frost susceptible soil, it is also necessary to provide guidance on appropriate site-specific details such as the depth of non-frost-susceptible soil or fill layers required for the frost depth encountered at the site and the layout of sub-surface drainage, when sub-surface site conditions are not well drained. Clarification and accuracy of roles during the site testing and installation process also play an important part in ensuring that frost-protected foundation designs meet the requirements of HUD's Manufactured Home Model Installation Standards in 24 CFR 3285.312.
The HUD commissioned study reviewed a selection of representative alternative foundation plans including FFF designs in current use for consistency with the HUD code, the ASCE 32 standard titled
A summary of key findings from the engineering assessment are as follows:
• One of the reviewed FFF designs demonstrated an appropriate application of the HUD code and ASCE 32 standard's technical requirements for frost protection of foundations. Thus, it is possible to develop a compliant FFF design in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or ASCE 32.
• All other reviewed FFF designs contained a number of flaws or non-conformances, including:
○ A lack of clarity of technical requirements in manufacturer installation instructions, details, and notes;
○ Missing or vague criteria for identification and measurement of soil frost susceptibility;
○ Missing or vague guidance for determining soil moisture, sub-surface drainage conditions, and water table depth in relation to determining if the site is “well drained” and suitable for an FFF installation; and
○ Missing guidance to direct appropriate site specific adjustments of important installation details (
• A number of the FFF installation designs reviewed showed a pattern of confused roles and responsibilities, often assigning design decisions and site engineering evaluations to local regulatory officials who are typically neither qualified nor trained in foundation engineering or soil mechanics and engineering. Furthermore, they are not charged with such responsibilities because it may pose a conflict of interest (
Consequently, most of the reviewed alternative foundation designs including FFF designs were found to be not in conformance with the HUD Code and the ASCE 32 reference standard for frost-protection of shallow foundations. In addition, one state's installation rules were reviewed and provisions related to FFF design and installations were found to be similarly non-compliant. Thus, a need exists to clarify requirements and provide guidance for proper and compliant applications of FFF designs as an alternative to a conventional (frost depth) footing or a conventional FPSF design using insulation to protect against ground freezing in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard.
In view of the above, each organization involved in the process of foundation design, approval, and installation has responsibilities that need to be met. Key areas and responsibilities for each organization or entity are as follows:
• Manufacturers need to ensure their foundation designs fully comply with 24 CFR 3285, Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards (HUD Code) by use of acceptable engineering practice or applicable provisions of the SEI/ASCE 32-01 Standard, Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations (ASCE 32). In general, the basis and design principles for acceptable engineering practice should
• Manufacturers should review and, as appropriate, delete or revise any installation instructions that rely exclusively on surface drainage to prevent the effects of frost heave, as such installations do not comply with acceptable engineering practices or ASCE 32.
• Manufacturers should inform installers in their installation instructions and on all approved foundation plans that prior to beginning the installation, a site-specific soil test or other evidence is required to determine soil frost susceptibility, the water table level, and sub-surface drainage conditions.
• Retailers should verify that the installations are performed only by licensed installers.
• Design professionals and Design Approval Primary Inspection Agencies (DAPIAs) need to ensure that foundation designs comply with all aspects of the HUD Code as provided in 24 CFR 3285.312. Designs that rely on surface drainage exclusively or do not specify the means of assessing frost susceptibility of soils and their sub-surface drainage characteristics should be disapproved or revised to meet the provisions of this Interpretative Bulletin. Frost protected foundation designs that were approved prior to the effective date of October 28, 2008, of HUD's Installation Program, should be reviewed and re-approved for compliance with 24 CFR 3285. Additionally, design and installation responsibilities may not be delegated to local regulatory authorities.
• Installers should consider all sites in freezing temperature areas as frost susceptible unless a soil test or other evidence is provided to prove the site is non-frost susceptible.
• To ensure compliance with acceptable engineering practices or ASCE 32, installers should never install a new home on a site that has conditions not covered in the manufacturer's installation instructions or the DAPIA approved engineered foundation plan, and should bring the specific site conditions to the professional engineer or registered architect of record for assessment or obtain the services of another professional engineer or registered architect to assess the site conditions and adequacy of the foundation design for the site. Once the plan is updated to address site conditions and sealed, it should be sent to the manufacturer and its DAPIA for approval. The plan should then be submitted to the LAHJ, as applicable. Installers should not use any design that assigns responsibility to them for assessing frost susceptibility and sub-surface drainage conditions without proper soil analysis.
• Regulatory officials and inspectors should reject installation plans that require them to take on any aspect of design responsibility. If a site is claimed to have soil that is non-frost susceptible and that is well-drained, soil tests or other evidence must be provided to the regulatory official and/or inspector.
• Manufacturer's installation instructions including DAPIA approved engineered foundation plans should be available on-site during inspections. If these plans are not available, the home cannot pass inspection.
• In areas where no set local frost depth is determined, the depths corresponding with the Air Freezing Index (Figure 1) may be used.
• Installation rules in both states and local municipalities should be compared to the ASCE 32 standard and the HUD Code to ensure conformity.
In view of the above described concerns, this Interpretative Bulletin was developed for the purpose of clarifying requirements and providing practical guidance for the manufactured housing industry when designing or setting foundations for a manufactured home in locations subject to freezing temperatures with seasonal ground freezing. This guidance is intended for first-time installations, not replacement installs when current foundations exist on site.
In summary, in order to resolve the identified problems and previously discussed concerns in this Preamble associated with certain foundation designs and installation practices in temperature areas subject to freezing, all responsible parties in the process should follow the guidance in this Interpretative Bulletin. These concerns and issues involve designers, DAPIAs, manufacturers, installers, and regulatory authorities. The most important factor in reducing problems are properly designed installation instructions giving appropriate direction and details for installers to implement and regulatory officials to verify and inspect. Because this over-arching concern is applicable to all methods of installation related to foundation frost-protection, specific recommendations and guidance for various design and installation options are provided in the Interpretative Bulletin.
1. How should the term frost free foundation be defined for use and context with this Interpretative Bulletin?
2. Are there any other alternative engineered foundation designs, including floating engineered slab designs and pile foundation systems, etc. that should be included for use with this Interpretative Bulletin? If so, under what conditions and criteria should these systems be permitted?
3. Please provide information on other strategies, that are currently not included in this proposed Interpretative Bulletin, that have been successfully used or employed to resist the effects of frost heave.
This Interpretative Bulletin is being issued to provide guidance for all parties associated with designing and installing manufactured home foundation systems in areas subject to freezing temperatures in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.312(b) of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.
Frost Protected Shallow Foundation (FPSF) means a foundation protected from frost heave by insulating the foundation in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or with the provisions in SEI/ASCE 32-01, Design and Construction of Frost Protected Foundations (ASCE 32) to retard frost penetration below the foundation in order to allow shallower footing depths to be used. Use of well drained non-frost susceptible soils is also included as FPSFs for certain applications (
The following recommendations, practices and procedures should be followed by all parties involved in manufactured home installations in order to ensure that foundations installed in freezing temperature areas are not subject to frost heave and comply with the provisions of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.
Manufacturers should require that design professionals who submit plans to them for approval, as required by 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(1)(ii), develop foundation frost-protection installation methods that comply with applicable provisions of the HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards, 24 CFR 3285.312(b)(2) or (3). To ensure consistent and effective conformance, options with detailed guidance for complying designs are provided below and should be followed. These directions should also be incorporated into their Manufacturer's Installation Instruction manual as required by 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(2).
• Current Frost Free Foundation (FFF) installation instructions that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of foundation frost-protection should either be removed from the manufacturer's installation instructions or immediately revised.
• Manufacturer's installation instructions for monolithic slab and alternative foundation designs including FFF designs should indicate that, prior to commencement of installation, the steps to be taken to verify through soil tests or existing site soil records that the site soil is non-frost-susceptible and that a ground water assessment should be done to verify that the soil is “well-drained” with a water table depth consistently and sufficiently below the frost line.
• To facilitate installations in locations subject to freezing, manufacturer instructions should have at least one example of an acceptable foundation system for frost susceptible and non-frost susceptible soil conditions for use in freezing temperature areas. These designs are to have a design professional's seal, and if not previously part of the manufacturer's installation instructions, be approved by the manufacturer and its Design Approval Primary Inspection Agency (DAPIA).
Foundation frost-protection methods used for installation designs need to comply with HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards by use of acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard. To ensure consistent and effective conformance, alternatives with detailed guidance for development of complying designs by manufacturers and for DAPIA review and approval are provided in the next section of this Interpretative Bulletin,
• Alternative foundation designs including FFF designs that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of foundation frost-protection should be removed from manufacturer's installation instructions and its DAPIA approval withdrawn or be immediately revised.
• Alternative foundation designs that do not specify appropriate means of assessing the frost-susceptibility of soils and their sub-surface drainage characteristics on a site-specific basis should either be removed from use and the manufacturer's installation instructions and DAPIA approval withdrawn or immediately revised.
• Alternative foundation designs including FFF designs that assign design responsibilities to local regulatory authorities, such as assessing site drainage, water table depth, or soil frost-susceptibility should be removed from use and the manufacturer's installation instructions and DAPIA approval withdrawn or immediately revised.
When installing a new home on a site that has conditions not covered in the manufacturer's installation manual or in a DAPIA approved alternative engineered foundation plan, the special site conditions should be brought to the attention of the engineer or architect of record. If there is no engineer or architect of record, a licensed engineer or licensed architect should be retained to evaluate the conditions and then design a plan to install the home. Once this plan is finalized and sealed, it must be sent to the manufacturer and its DAPIA for approval per 24 CFR 3285.2(c)(1)(ii). The plan should also be submitted to the LAHJ for approval if applicable.
• Installers should never install manufactured homes using alternative foundations or FFF installation designs that rely exclusively on surface drainage as a means of frost protection.
• Installers should never initiate an FFF installation where the instructions require them to take on design responsibility of assessing soil frost-susceptibility and sub-surface drainage conditions without proper soil testing and analysis. Instead, installers should verify that appropriate soil testing and site assessment for use of any given foundation design has been completed prior to initiating an installation.
• Prior to installation of an alternative foundation including an engineered system that is not included in the manufacturer's installation instructions, installers need to verify that the installation plan is stamped by an engineer or architect of record as well as approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.
• Installers should only use foundation plans that have been approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA on or after January 1, 2009, the effective date of HUD's installation program.
Regulatory officials and inspectors should verify compliance with manufacturer DAPIA approved installation designs including provisions for subsurface drainage, water table depth, requirements for non-frost-susceptibility of soils, etc., when required by the design for a given site.
• Where a site is claimed to have non-frost-susceptible and “well-drained” soils as a basis for setting foundation pads or footings above the design frost depth, evidence should be required including soils tests or pre-existing site-specific soil records and site sub-surface drainage and groundwater investigation by a qualified soils laboratory or soils engineering professional or geologist. Single site soil samples may be taken by the installer or by qualified soil engineering professionals with the soil tests done by a qualified soils engineering laboratory or soils engineering professional. The standard for non-frost susceptible soil is that no more than 6% by mass can pass through a #200 sieve in accordance with ASTM D422-63(2007)e2, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422).
• Regulatory officials should assure that any DAPIA approved alternate foundation plans and the manufacturer installation instructions are on site and available during inspections. If approved installation plans are not available on site during inspections, the home cannot pass inspection.
In areas where the local frost depth is unavailable, or not documented, local regulatory officials should consider permitting design frost depths to be determined in accordance with Table 1. Design Frost Depth for Footings and Figure 1. U.S. Air Freezing Map Index.
• Obtain the local-design frost depth for footings from either of the following:
○ The local authority having jurisdiction (LAHJ),
○ Use Table 1 with the site's Air-Freezing Index (AFI) from Figure 1,
○ Consult with a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered geologist.
• When using Table 1 and Figure 1 to determine frost depth for footings, the depth of interior pier footings complying with footnote (b) of Table 1 may be taken as one-half the depth required in Table 1.
• Based on the required frost depth for footings, dig the footing to the frost depth.
• Check the soil bearing at depth of the footing with a torque probe, pocket penetrometer or other suitable testing device.
• Based on the tested soil bearing value, properly size the footing according to the manufacturer's installation instructions or use the Table in 24 CFR 3285.202 in the HUD Code.
• Place footing pads and construct piers or supports at locations specified in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions.
• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage in accordance with 24 CFR 3285.203:
○ Crown the finish grade at the centerline of the foundation
○ Slope grade a minimum of
• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) by a registered professional engineer or registered architect, and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.
• When applicable, verify that the LAHJ has accepted and approved the foundation and installation plan and all applicable permits are obtained. For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of existing soils to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:
○ The non-frost-susceptible condition of existing soils above the frost depth and below the base of the slab at each site has been verified by site soil records or tested by a soils engineer or geologist or tested in accordance with ASTM D422 and determined to have a fines mass content of less than 6% by mass passing a #200 sieve for the specific installation site or the development as a whole. A soils report should be provided by the engineer or soil lab of record for verification.
○ Alternatively, conduct such testing as follows:
➢ Obtain a minimum of two soil samples per installation site (one at each end of the foundation area) and from any borrow materials on site used as fill. A materials report from a quarry may be used when material is supplied from a licensed quarry.
➢ When conducting borings for soil samples, take a minimum of one pint (plastic bag full) of soil from depths of one foot and at the determined frost depth or at the frost depth as determined from Table 1, Design Frost Depth for Footings. Continue each boring to two feet below the determined frost depth (as measured from the proposed finish grade) to determine if the water table is present.
➢ Deliver or send the soil samples to a soils laboratory for particle size testing per ASTM D422.
➢ If the soils laboratory report indicates greater than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve, then the soil at the site is frost susceptible and either footing to frost depth or one of the alternative foundation options (see
○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, make this determination using soil borings as described above.
○ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipes sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system must be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (
○ Alternatively, a site specific foundation design can be prepared and sealed by a professional engineer or registered architect or geologist and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA. Such foundation designs are to comply with the provisions of the ASCE 32 Standard or with accepted engineering practice that will result in comparable performance to the frost protection afforded by the ASCE 32 Standard.
○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.
• For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of fill materials to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:
○ The slab base and foundation fill materials are specified by the engineer or architect of record as non-frost susceptible such as clean gravel or crushed rock or other suitable material with no more than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve per ASTM D422 test method. Non-frost susceptible subgrade materials are to be filled from the frost depth to the slab base for the entire extent of the slab plus any over dig.
○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, this determination can be made using soil borings as described above.
➢ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipe sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (
○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.
• Excavate slab area to frost depth or only to the bottom of the slab's non-frost-susceptible base layer if existing soils have been determined to be non-frost susceptible down to frost depth during the pre-installation preparation phase (see above).
• Place foundation drains sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system at the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base or fill material layer.
• Place the non-frost-susceptible fill and base materials, compacting as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions and/or the engineer or architect of record. Do not initiate fill placement where compaction requirements and methods are not specified. Obtain compaction requirements, as needed, from the engineer or architect of record. The minimum requirement is 90% compaction per 24 CFR 3285.201 although the engineer or architect of record or LAHJ may require a higher compaction level based on the fill material used.
• Construct the reinforced monolithic slab in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions or according to the manufacturer and DAPIA approved installation instructions and plans.
• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:
○ Slope grade a minimum of
• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) and certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect, approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA.
• Also, verify that the instructions include an approved installation design complying with one of the following bases for the proposed installation design, as permitted in the HUD Code:
○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard by use of properly-specified insulation materials and sized in accordance with the local temperature area and located around the perimeter of the foundation with insulated skirting and closeable vents or the entire foundation pad is insulated where there is no skirting or the skirting is not insulated or the skirting has non-closing vents. Non-frost-susceptible base materials are used at a minimum thickness required by acceptable engineering practice or SEI/ASCE 32, and insulation materials are protected
○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice to prevent the effects of frost heave in accordance with acceptable engineering practice or in a manner equivalent to the insulation provisions in the ASCE 32 standard.
Designs which place insulation materials in a discontinuous fashion, such that exposed slab edges or other types of thermal bridging occurs, do not meet the requirements of the SEI/ASCE 32 standard or the HUD Code provisions that allow the use of “acceptable engineering practice to prevent the effects of frost heave.”
• Obtain foundation insulation materials as specified in the installation instruction and verify the correct type is received. Commonly accepted insulation materials include Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) of various “types” in accordance with ASTM C578 and ASCE 32 standards.
• Insulation material conformance with the specified type should be verified by product labels or a certification from the insulation manufacturer. Materials commonly stocked in supply stores may not be the correct “type” even though it may be the correct “kind” (
There is no need to determine the frost susceptibility of underlying soils to frost depth in the insulated foundation design approach when the foundation and ground insulation provisions of ASCE 32 are satisfied.
• Excavate the foundation area to the correct shallow foundation depth as indicated in the manufacturer's installation instructions or by the engineer or architect of record (generally the foundation depth need not exceed 12″ to 16″ below finish grade).
• Place specified non-frost-susceptible base material and provide drainage pipes around the perimeter, at a minimum of 4 inches (within the base material layer) as required by the installation instructions. Pipes need to be run to day-light or have a mechanical means of draining the water. Sequence the foundation slab or pad construction and insulation placement in accordance with the design approach indicated on the manufacturer's installation instructions. Where sub-slab insulation is required, this will need to be placed before slab construction. Perimeter insulation may be placed after slab construction.
• After construction of the slab and supports and placement of the home, construct the insulated skirting with closeable vents as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions. Where the foundation slab is entirely insulated with horizontal below ground insulation (the design does not rely on perimeter insulation only), no skirting is required.
• Place wing insulation (extending outward horizontally underground from the perimeter of the foundation) as required by the installation instructions. Depending on the design approach and temperature severity, wing insulation may or may not be required.
• Provide protection of any exposed exterior insulation or within 10 inches of the finish grade surface.
• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:
○ Slope grade a minimum of
• Before initiating installation, verify that the installation instructions are designed (sealed) by a professional engineer or registered architect, and approved by the manufacturer and its DAPIA. The LAHJ can require that the plans also be reviewed and sealed by an engineer or architect in the state where the installation is to occur.
• When applicable, verify that the LAHJ has accepted and approved the alternative foundation and installation plan and all applicable permits are obtained. The installation design needs to comply with one of the following conformance options for the proposed installation design as permitted in HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards:
○ Complies with acceptable engineering practice or the ASCE 32 standard by use of non-frost-susceptible site soils or fills (adequately tested and verified as defined in ASCE 32) and that such soils or fills extend to the determined frost depth with provision for adequate surface and subgrade drainage especially where underlying soils are poorly drained and/or the water table is within two feet of the design frost depth.
Reliance solely on surface drainage to prevent the effects of frost heave without verification of non-frost-susceptible fill materials or existing non-frost susceptible soils to frost depth does not comply with the design principles of the ASCE 32 standard or HUD Code's allowance for “acceptable engineering practice to prevent the effects of frost heave.”
• For designs that rely on well-drained soils and sites and use of existing soils to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:
○ The non-frost-susceptible characteristic of existing soils above the determined frost depth at each site has been tested by a soils engineer or geologist or tested in accordance with ASTM D422 and determined to have a fines mass content of less than 6% passing a #200 sieve for the specific installation site or the development as a whole. A soils report should be provided by the engineer or soil lab of record for verification.
○ Alternatively, conduct such testing as follows:
➢ Obtain a minimum of two soil samples per installation site (one at each end of the foundation area) and from any borrow materials on site used as fill. A materials report from a quarry may be used when material is supplied from a licensed quarry.
➢ When conducting borings for soil samples, take a minimum of one pint (plastic bag full) of soil from depths of one foot and at the determined prescribed frost depth or as determined from Table 1, Design Frost Depth for Footings. Continue each boring to two feet below the determined prescribed frost depth (as measured from the proposed finish grade) to determine if the water table is present.
➢ Deliver or send the soil samples to a soils laboratory for particle size testing per ASTM D442.
➢ If the soils laboratory report indicates greater than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve, then the soil at the site is frost susceptible and either a footing to frost depth or a manufacturer and DAPIA approved alternative foundation for frost susceptible soil conditions must be used.
○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, make this determination using soil borings as described above.
○ If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipes sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (
○ Alternatively, a site specific foundation design can be prepared and sealed by a professional engineer or registered architect or geologist and
○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.
• For designs that rely on well-drained sites and use of fill materials to frost depth that are non-frost susceptible, verify the following before initiating installation:
○ The slab base and foundation fill materials are specified by the engineer or architect of record as non-frost susceptible such as clean gravel or crushed rock or other suitable material with no more than 6% fines by mass passing a #200 sieve per ASTM D442 test method. Non-frost susceptible subgrade materials are to be filled from the frost depth to the slab base for the entire extent of the slab plus any over dig.
○ The water table condition of the site has been assessed by the engineer or architect of record and documentation provided of the water table being at least two feet below the determined frost depth. Alternatively, this determination can be made using soil borings as described above.
If the water table is higher than two feet below the determined frost depth, a network of drainage pipe sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system should be placed at the base of non-frost-susceptible fill (
○ Save documentation of all of the above and provide to the LAHJ for verification as required.
• Excavate area under foundation or slab to frost depth or only to the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base layer if existing soils have been determined to be non-frost susceptible down to frost depth during the pre-installation preparation phase (see above).
• Place foundation drains sloped to drain to daylight or an engineered drainage system at the bottom of the non-frost-susceptible base or fill material layer.
• Place the non-frost-susceptible fill and base materials, compacting as required by the manufacturer's installation instructions and/or the engineer or architect of record. Do not initiate fill placement where compaction requirements and methods are not specified. Obtain compaction requirements, as needed, from the engineer or architect of record. The minimum requirement is 90% compaction per 24 CFR 3285.201 although the engineer or architect of record or LAHJ may require a higher compaction level based on the fill material used.
• Construct the alternative foundation system in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions or according to the manufacturer and DAPIA approved installation instructions and plans.
• Backfill as needed and grade the site as required for drainage:
○ Slope grade a minimum of
The above procedures also apply to designs where a monolithic slab is not used and pier footing pads are placed directly on non-frost-susceptible soils or fill materials (
This Interpretative Bulletin is issued pursuant to 24 CFR 3285.2 and 3285.312(b) of HUD's Model Manufactured Home Installation Standards.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Cleveland Inner Harbor on Lake Erie during the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival on August 12, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 11, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0200 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-937-0124, email
On February 22, 2017, the Cleveland Dragon Boat Association notified the Coast Guard that it will be holding the Cleveland Dragon Boat Festival from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on August 12, 2017. The dragon boat races are to take place in Lake Erie, off of Wendy Park located on Whiskey Island, Cleveland, OH. The course will consist of 3 racing lanes of 400 meters in length that run parallel to the shoreline. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a boating race event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters within the race course during heats of the scheduled event. Vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the safety zone between heats. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. through 3 p.m. on August 12, 2017, that would be effective and enforced intermittently. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of Lake Erie, off of Whiskey Island, Cleveland, OH inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′57″ N., 081°43′00″ W., extending in a straight line to the break wall at position 41°30′12″ N., 081°43′14″ W.,
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Order's, 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 NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
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 proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) This zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, off of Whiskey Island, Cleveland, OH inside an area starting on shore at position 41°29′57″ N., 081°43′00″ W., extending in a straight line to the break wall at position 41°30′12″ N., 081°43′14″ W., then along the break wall to position 41°30′23″ N., 081°42′56″ W., and back to the shore at position 41°30′05″ N., 081°42′39″ W. (NAD 83).
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the Kaskaskia River between miles 9 and 11. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Evansville, IL during high speed boat races on September 16 and 17, 2017. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before July 21, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0521 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed
On March 8, 2017, Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River received an application for a marine event from the Kentucky Drag Boat Association for the Evansville, IL Drag Boat Races. The event is scheduled to take place over two days, September 16 and 17, 2017, on the Kaskaskia River near Evansville, IL. High speed boat practices and races will take place during the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on September 16 and 17, 2017.
Hazards from this race include impediment of the navigational channel and high speed vessels participating in the race. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the race would be a safety concern for anyone transiting through the race course.
The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters between mile markers 9 and 11 before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this proposed rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. on September 16, 2017 through 6 p.m. on September 17, 2017. The zone would be enforced from 8 a.m. through 6 p.m. each day. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters between mile markers 9 and 11 on the Kaskaskia River in Evansville, IL. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and participants on the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled high speed boat practices and races. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This proposed rule would have a minimal impact on navigable waterway vessel traffic because it would be in enforced for ten daylight hours on two consecutive days and would restrict transit in and through a section of the Kaskaskia River extending two miles. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the proposed rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. The racing events on September 16 and 17, 2017 will take place in heats, allowing time for vessels affected by the closure to transit the area between heats when deemed safe by on-scene representatives of the COTP.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A. above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of the rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting for ten hours on two days, during daylight hours and restricts transit in and through a section of the Kaskaskia River extending two miles. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration is available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this proposed rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this proposed rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To request entry into the safety zone, contact the COTP or a designated representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River by telephone at 314-269-2332. Those persons authorized to be in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or a designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD), Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (NSAQMD), and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern aerospace assembly, rework, and component manufacturing operations; emissions statements and recordkeeping; and definitions, respectively. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by July 21, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0647 at
Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules MDAQMD Rule 1118, NSAQMD Rule 513, and SDCAPCD Rule 2. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.
Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO), USDA.
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA).
This notice announces the availability of funds and solicits applications from community-based and non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, and Tribal entities to compete for financial assistance through the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers Program (hereinafter known as the “2501 Program”). Individual applicants do not meet the eligibility criteria.
Funding is being provided to eligible entities who, in partnership with the Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO), will conduct outreach initiatives and training to achieve the overall goal of the 2501 Program—to assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and ranches while increasing their participation in agricultural programs and services provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Only one project proposal may be submitted per eligible entity. Proposals must be submitted through
At least two (2) teleconferences will be held during the open period of this announcement to answer any clarifying questions.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at:
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Advocacy and Outreach, Attn: Kenya Nicholas, Program Director, J. L. Whitten Building, Room 520-A, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: (202) 720-6350, Fax: (202) 720-7704, Email:
Funding will be awarded based on peer competition within the three categories described below along with the amount of anticipated funding for each category. The OAO reserves the discretion to allocate funding between the three categories based upon the number and quality of applications received. There is no commitment by the OAO to fund any particular application or to select a specific number of recipients within each category.
1. Category #1: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4 (1890 Land Grant colleges and universities, 1994 Alaska Native and American Indian Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic-Serving colleges and universities).
2. Category #2: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.1 and III.A.6 (
3. Category #3: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.5 and III.A.7 (
The OAO is committed to ensuring that socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers are able to equitably participate in USDA programs. Differences in demographics, culture, economics, and other factors preclude a single approach to identifying solutions that can benefit our underserved farmers and ranchers. Community-based and non-profit organizations, higher education institutions, and eligible Tribal entities can play a critical role in addressing the unique difficulties they face and can
1. The 2501 Program was authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture (the Secretary) to provide awards under the program and transferred the administrative authority to the OAO. The Agricultural Act of 2014 further expanded the program to include outreach and assistance to veterans. The 2501 Program extends USDA's capacity to work with members of farming and ranching communities by funding projects that enhance the equitable participation of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs. It is the OAO's intention to build lasting relationships between USDA, the recipient's organizations, and socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.
2. Only one proposal will be accepted from each organization.
The 2501 Program provides funding to eligible organizations for training and technical assistance projects designed to assist socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating viable agricultural enterprises. Proposals must be consistent with requirements stated in 7 U.S.C. 2279(a)(2). Under this statute, the outreach and technical assistance program funds shall be used exclusively:
1. To enhance coordination of the outreach, technical assistance, and education efforts authorized under agriculture programs;
2. To assist the Secretary of Agriculture in:
a. Reaching current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers and veteran farmers or ranchers in a linguistically appropriate manner; and
b. improving the participation of those farmers and ranchers in USDA programs.
Proposals from eligible entities must address two or more of the following priority areas:
1. Assist socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers in owning and operating successful farms and ranches;
2. Improve participation among socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs;
3. Build relationships between current and prospective farmers and ranchers who are either socially disadvantaged or veterans and USDA's local, state, regional, and National offices;
4. Introduce agriculture-related information to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers through innovative training and technical assistance techniques; and
5. Introduce agricultural education targeting socially disadvantaged youth, and/or socially disadvantaged beginning farmers and ranchers, in rural and persistent poverty communities.
To encourage information sharing and to build capacity among recipients, the OAO may require Project Directors to attend an annual training conference that can be expensed with awarded grant funds not to exceed $1,000 per award for up to two authorized entity personnel. The conference will allow recipients, USDA officials, and other agriculture-related guests to share ideas and lessons learned; provide training on performance and financial reporting requirements; and provide information on USDA programs and services. In addition, Project Directors will have an opportunity to make contacts and gather information on best practices.
1. Outputs (Activities). The term “output” means an outreach, educational component, or assistance activity, task, or associated work product related to improving the ability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to own and operate farms and ranches, assistance with agriculture related activities, or guidance for participation in USDA programs. Outputs may be quantitative or qualitative but must be measurable during the period of performance.
Examples of outputs from the projects to be funded under this announcement may describe an organization's activities and their participants such as: Number of workshops or meetings held and number of participants attending; frequency of services or training delivered; and to whom and/or development of products, curriculum, or resources provided. Other examples include but are not limited to the following:
a. Number of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers or ranchers served;
b. number of conferences or training sessions held and number of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers who attended;
c. type and topic of educational materials distributed at outreach events;
d. creation of a program to enhance the operational viability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;
e. number of completed applications submitted for consideration for USDA programs; or
f. activity that supports increased participation of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and veteran farmers and ranchers in USDA programs.
Progress and Financial Reports will be required, as specified in Section VI, Subsection D, “Reporting Requirement.”
2. Outcomes (Results). The term “outcome” means the difference or effect that has occurred as a result from carrying out an activity, workshop, meeting, or from delivery of services related to a programmatic goal or objective. Outcomes refer to the final impact, change, or result that occurs as a direct result of the activities performed in accomplishing the objectives and goals of your project. Outcomes may refer to results that are agricultural, behavioral, social, or economic in nature. Outcomes may reflect an increase in knowledge or skills, a greater awareness of available resources or programs, or actions taken by stakeholders as a result of learning.
Project Directors will be required to document anticipated outcomes that are funded under this announcement which should include but are not limited to:
a. Increase in participation in USDA programs among socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;
b. increase in receptiveness of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers to outreach efforts through effective communication;
c. increase in economic stability of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers within a defined geographic area;
d. increase in community marketing and sales opportunities for the products of socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers; or
e. increase use of resource conservation and sustainability practices among socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.
3. Performance Measures. Performance measures are tied to the goals or objectives of each activity and ultimately the overall purpose of the project. They provide insight into the effectiveness of proposed activities by indicating areas where a project may need adjustments to ensure success. Applicants must develop performance
Consider the following questions when developing performance measurement statements:
• What is the measurable short-term and long-term impact the project will have on servicing or meeting the needs of stakeholders?
• How will the organization measure the effectiveness and efficiency of their proposed activities to meet their overall goals and objectives?
The statutory authority for this action is 7 U.S.C. 2279, as amended, which authorizes award funding for projects designed to provide outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.
The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is $8.4 million. Funding will be awarded based on peer competition within the three categories listed below. The OAO reserves the discretion to allocate funding between the categories based upon the number and quality of applications received. There is no commitment by the OAO to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards within each category.
1. Category #1: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.2, III.A.3, and III.A.4 (1890 Land-Grant colleges and universities, 1994 Alaska Native and American Indian Tribal colleges and universities, and Hispanic-Serving colleges and universities). The OAO anticipates making awards totaling at least $2 million for Category #1 applicants.
2. Category #2: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.1 and III.A.6 (
3. Category #3: Eligible entities described in Sections III.A.5 and III.A.7 (
The performance period for projects selected from this solicitation will not begin prior to the effective award date. The maximum project period is one (1) year. Projects that are part of multi-year initiatives will only be funded for 1 year.
Funding for selected projects will be in the form of a grant which must be fully executed no later than September 30, 2017. The anticipated Federal involvement will be limited to the following activities:
1. Approval of recipients' final budget and statement of work accompanying the grant agreement;
2. Monitoring of recipients' performance through quarterly and final financial and performance reports; and
3. Evaluation of recipients' use of federal funds through desk audits and on-site visits.
1. Any community-based organization, network, or coalition of community-based organizations that:
• Demonstrates experience in providing agricultural education or other agricultural-related services to socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers;
• provides documentary evidence of work with, and on behalf of, socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers during the 3-year period preceding the submission of a proposal for assistance under this program; and
• does not or has not engaged in activities prohibited under Section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
2. An 1890 or 1994 institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 7601).
3. An American Indian Tribal community college or an Alaska Native cooperative college.
4. A Hispanic-Serving Institution of higher education (as defined in 7 U.S.C. 3103).
5. Any other institution of higher education (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1001) that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agricultural-related services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
6. An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b) or a National Tribal organization that has demonstrated experience in providing agricultural education or other agriculturally-related services to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
7. All other organizations or institutions that received funding under this program before January 1, 1996, but only with respect to projects that the Secretary considers similar to projects previously carried out by the entity under this program.
Matching is not required for this program.
Applications from eligible entities that meet all criteria will be evaluated as follows:
1. Proposals must comply with the submission instructions and requirements set forth in Section IV of this announcement. Pages in excess of the page limitation will not be considered.
2. Proposals must be received through
3. Proposals received after the submission deadline will not be considered. Please note that in order to submit proposals, organizations must create accounts in
4. Proposals must address a minimum of two or more of the priority areas that provide outreach and assistance to socially disadvantaged or veteran farmers and ranchers as stated in Section I, Subsection B, Scope of Work.
5. Incomplete or partial applications will not be eligible for consideration.
It is a requirement to register for SAM (
Per 2 CFR part 200, applicants are required to: (1) Be registered in SAM prior to submitting an application; (2) provide a valid unique entity identifier in the application; and (3) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the organization has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The OAO may not make a Federal award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the OAO is ready to make a Federal award, OAO may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
SAM contains the publicly available data for all active exclusion records entered by the Federal Government identifying those parties excluded from receiving Federal contracts, certain subcontracts, and certain types of Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits. All applicant organizations and their key personnel will be vetted through
Applicants may download individual grant proposal forms from
Applicants are required to submit proposals through
Federal agencies post funding opportunities on
Proposals must be submitted by August 21, 2017, via
All submissions must contain completed and electronically signed original application forms, as well as a Project Summary, Project Narrative, and a Budget Narrative as described below:
1. Forms and documents. The forms listed below can be found in the proposal package at
2. Attachments. The attachments listed below are required for all proposals and must be included in the proposal package at
•
•
○ Discuss the merits of your proposed project. Specifically, proposals must: (1) Define and establish the existence of the needs of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, veteran farmers and ranchers, or both in the defined geographic area; (2) identify the experience of the organization(s) taking part in the project; (3) identify the names of organizations that will be your partners in the project, if any; (4) identify the geographic area of service; and (5) discuss the potential impact of the project.
○ Identify the qualifications, relevant experience, education, and publications of each Project Director or collaborator. Also, specifically address the work to be completed by key personnel and the roles and responsibilities within the scope of the proposed project. This includes past completed projects and financial management experiences.
○ In an organized format, create a timeline for each task to be accomplished during the period of performance timeframe. Relate each task to one of the five priority areas in Section I, Subsection B. The timeline is part of the 15 page limit but can be as simple as a one-page description of tasks.
•
•
1. SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
2. Project Summary Page (no more than 250 words).
3. Project Narrative including a timeline (no more than 15 pages, 12 point font, and 1 inch margins only).
4. SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
5. SF 424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
6. Budget Narrative (not to exceed 2 pages).
7. Key Contacts Form (include the Project Director/Manager and Financial Representative). Provide first, middle, and last names.
8. Résumés of key personnel, current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements, Partnership Agreements, Letters of Intent, Support, or Recommendation, proof of 501(c)(3) status (if applicable), etc.
* Complete the following as soon as possible:
(1) Obtain a registered DUNs number.
(2) Register and maintain an active System for Award Management (SAMs) account.
(3) Register in
* Only submit Adobe PDF file format documents to
* Name your documents with short titles to prevent issues with uploading/downloading documents from
* Do not password protect any submitted forms or documents.
* Ensure all the information on your SF-424 Application and Key Contact forms are correct. Include first, middle, and last names on Key Contact forms.
WHERE TO UPLOAD ATTACHMENTS ON YOUR APPLICATION. There are three blocks on the application where you may upload attachments:
* On block 14, click on “Add Attachment” to upload your Project Summary and Project Narrative.
* In the section that reads “Budget Narrative File(s)”, type in the “Mandatory Budget Narrative Filename”. Just below the file name, click on “Add Mandatory Budget Narrative” to upload your Budget Narrative.
* After block 15, click on “Add Attachments” to add all your supporting documents (résumés, Partnership Agreements, Letters of Support, etc.).
Funding may be used to provide sub-awards, which includes using sub-awards to fund partnerships; however, the recipient must utilize at least 50 percent of the total funds awarded, and no more than three subcontracts will be permitted. All sub-awardees must comply with applicable requirements for sub-awards. Applicants must provide documentation of a competitive bidding process for services, contracts, and products, including consultant contracts, and conduct cost and price analyses to the extent required by applicable procurement regulations.
The OAO awards funds to
The closing date and time for receipt of proposal submissions is August 21, 2017, at 11:59 p.m., EST via
In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, the names of entities submitting proposals, as well as proposal contents and evaluations, will be kept confidential to the extent permissible by law. If an applicant chooses to include confidential or proprietary information in the proposal, it will be treated in accordance with Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Exemption 4 of the FOIA protects trade secrets, and commercial and financial information obtained from a person that is privileged or confidential.
1. The OAO may not assist individual applicants by reviewing draft proposals or providing advice on how to respond to evaluation criteria. However, the OAO will respond to questions from individual applicants regarding eligibility criteria, administrative issues related to the submission of the proposal, and requests for clarification regarding the announcement. Any questions should be submitted to
2. The OAO will post questions and answers relating to this funding opportunity during its open period on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section of our Web site:
3. Please visit our Web site at
Only eligible entities whose proposals meet the threshold criteria in Section III of this announcement will be reviewed according to the evaluation criteria set forth below. Applicants should explicitly and fully address these criteria as part of their proposal package. Each proposal will be reviewed under the regulations established under 2 CFR part 200.
A review panel that is independent of OAO will use a point system to rate each proposal, awarding a maximum of 100 points (90 points, plus an additional 10 discretionary points for programmatic priorities). Each proposal will be reviewed by at least two members of the Independent Review Panel who will review and score all applications submitted. The Independent Review Panel will numerically score and rank each application within the three categories and funding decisions will be based on their recommendations to the designated approving official. Final funding decisions will be made by the designated approving official.
All applications will be reviewed by members of an Independent Review Panel. Panel members are selected based upon training and experience in relevant fields including outreach, technical assistance, cooperative extension services, civil rights, education, statistical, and ethnographic data collection and analysis, and agricultural programs, and are drawn from a diverse group of experts to create a balanced panel.
1. The successful applicant will be notified by the OAO via telephone, email, and/or postal mail. The notification will advise the applicant that its proposed project has been evaluated and recommended for award. The notification will be sent to the
2. The OAO will also send notification to unsuccessful applicants via email or postal mail. The notification will be sent to the
3. Within 10 days of award status notification, unsuccessful applicants may request feedback on their application. Feedback will be provided as expeditiously as possible. Feedback sessions will be scheduled contingent upon the number of requests and in accordance with 7 CFR 2500.026.
All awards resulting from this solicitation will be administered in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards codified at 2 CFR part 200, as supplemented by USDA implementing regulations at 2 CFR parts 400 and 415, and OAO Federal Financial Assistance Programs—General Award Administrative Procedures, 7 CFR part 2500.
In compliance with its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 13166, it is the policy of the OAO to provide timely and meaningful access for persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) to projects, programs, and activities administered by Federal grant recipients. Recipient organizations must comply with these obligations upon acceptance of grant agreements as written in OAO's Terms and Conditions. Following these guidelines is essential to the success of our mission to improve access to USDA programs for socially disadvantaged and veteran farmers and ranchers.
In accordance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) and the USDA implementation, all applicants must obtain and provide an identifying number from Dun and Bradstreet's (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS). Applicants can receive a DUNS number, at no cost, by calling the toll-free DUNS number request line at (866) 705-5711, or visiting the D&B Web site at
In addition, FFATA requires applicants to register with the System for Award Management (SAM).
All applicants must register for an account on
In accordance with 2 CFR part 200, the following reporting requirements will apply to awards provided under this FOA. The OAO reserves the right to revise the schedule and format of reporting requirements as necessary in the award agreement.
1. Quarterly Progress Reports and Financial Reports will be required.
•
•
2. Final Progress and Financial Reports will be required upon project completion. This report should include a summary of the project or activity throughout the funding period, achievements of the project or activity, and a discussion of overall successes and issues experienced in conducting the project or project activities. The final Financial Report should consist of a complete SF-425 indicating the total costs of the project. Final Progress and Financial Reports must be submitted to the designated OAO official within 90 days after the completion of the award period as follows:
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments.
As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA) 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).
Comments must be submitted by July 21, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503;
To request additional information, please contact Ruth Brown (202) 720-8958 or Charlene Parker (202) 720-8681.
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.
The Agency received one comments in response to the 60-day notice published in the
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.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Ochoco National Forest is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the effects of revising the 1975 Ochoco Wild and Free Roaming Herd Management Plan (Herd Management Plan). The Herd Management Plan provides guidance for managing wild, free roaming horses within the Big Summit Territory on the Lookout Mountain Ranger District. The 27,300-acre Big Summit Territory is located approximately 30 miles east of Prineville and includes Round Mountain and Duncan Butte. The 1975 Herd Management Plan set an Appropriate Management Level (AML) of 55-65 horses; the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) states horses will be managed at a maximum of 60 head. This project will revise the original Herd Management Plan to comply with the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act (WFRHBA) of 1971, as amended, and the federal regulation for management of wild and free-roaming horses and burros. The proposed action is consistent with the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 21, 2017. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be completed and available for public comment in June 2018. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be completed in September 2018.
Send written comments to Ochoco Wild and Free Roaming Herd Management Plan Revision Project, c/o Marcy Anderson, Lookout Mountain District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754. Alternately, electronic comments
Tory Kurtz, Project Leader, at 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, or at (541) 416-6500, or by email at
1. Determine if the current AML of a maximum of 60 head, as established in the Ochoco National Forest LRMP, continues to be valid. If it is no longer valid, determine the optimum number of animals the Territory can support on a yearlong basis with a thriving natural ecological balance as required by the WFRHBA. An AML range will be proposed to provide for a thriving natural ecological balance incorporating the minimal feasible level of management as required by the WFRHBA. The AML analysis will be conducted according to the guidance of the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook (H-4700-1). Under this guidance there is a three tier process to determine AML that considers: (1) The four essential habitat needs to sustain a healthy wild horse population and healthy lands over time; (2) the amount of sustainable forage use available for wild horses; and (3) management of the genetic diversity of the wild horse herd. In determining the AML, the most limiting factors for essential habitat needs must be used to create a thriving natural ecological balance and multiple use relationship in the area. The most limiting factors for the Big Summit Territory are winter forage and space. The AML analysis will calculate the winter forage available for horses and allocate the forage for maintenance of healthy horses with consideration of the multiple uses in the Territory. Based on an annual census, horses above the identified AML range would be considered excess animals.
2. Correct the Territory boundary map to remove private land that was mistakenly included in the original Territory map; this would revise the Territory acres to 26,975, as opposed to 27,300 acres as described in the original Environmental Assessment.
3. Manage for genetic diversity in the population through introduction of new genes, adjustments of the sex ratio or other actions. The Forest will continue to work with Texas A&M University and monitor genetic diversity with samples collected from captures or other opportunities to ensure genetic diversity is managed to the best of our ability.
4. Implement methods to slow the herd's rate of growth (reproductive rate) as needed to maintain AML within the identified range. Methods to slow the herd growth rate could include adjusting age distribution and approved fertility control methods such as Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP).
5. Develop an Emergency Action Framework for effectively and humanely managing situations such as sick, lame, or old horses or public safety concerns. This Emergency Action Framework would be used to help inform the Forest Service's Responsible Official.
6. Develop an off-range plan that would include protocols for capturing horses, handling horses including identifying facilities and needs, adoption of horses, training programs and the sale of horses. At a minimum, a corral that is currently located at the Ochoco Ranger Station compound on the Lookout Mountain Ranger District would be improved to fit the needs of off-range management.
7. Forest Plan Amendment: If the analysis indicates that a different AML or range of AMLs is appropriate for the revised Herd Management Plan, a Forest Plan amendment would be required. The 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219 includes provisions that must be considered when a forest plan amendment is completed. Substantive rule requirements that are likely to be directly related to the proposed amendment include:
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Agency officials to determine whether a proposed Federal action is an undertaking that has the potential to cause effects to historic properties. In addition, the Forest Service is required to provide those with significant interests in historic preservation issues the opportunity to participate in the consultation process as a consulting party. Participating in consultation during the early stages of a proposed
A draft EIS will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review by June, 2018. The EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the draft EIS in the
The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions [
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS of the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments received during the comment period for the draft EIS. The Forest Service is the lead agency and the responsible official is the Forest Supervisor, Ochoco National Forest. The responsible official will decide whether and how to revise the Ochoco Wild Horse Herd Management Plan.
The Ochoco Wild Horse Herd Management Plan decision and the reasons for the decision will be documented in the record of decision. That decision will be subject to the Forest Service Project-level Predecisional Administrative Review Process (“Objection Process” at 36 CFR 218).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS is convening a peer review of a Calibration Model proposed by the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) to support its planned transition from a legacy telephone survey to a new mail survey for collecting data needed to estimate marine recreational fishing effort by shore and private/rental boat anglers on the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. The peer review includes reviewers appointed by the Center for Independent Experts (CIE), as well as reviewers selected by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. This notice lists the time and place of the Peer Review Workshop.
The Workshop will be held from 9 a.m. on June 27, 2017 until 12 p.m. on June 29, 2017.
The Workshop will be held at the Sheraton Hotel, 8777 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; Phone: 301/589-0800.
Dr. David Van Voorhees, Chief of Fisheries Statistics Division of NMFS Office of Science and Technology; phone 301/427-8189; FAX 301/427-4520; email:
The Marine Recreational Information Program formed a Transition Team in 2015 to plan transitions from legacy survey designs to new, or improved, survey designs for monitoring marine recreational fishing effort and catch. The Transition Team consists of representatives from NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management councils, the interstate fisheries commissions, and several state marine fisheries agencies. The team prepared a transition plan for implementing a new mail survey called the “Fishing Effort Survey” to replace the legacy telephone survey called the “Coastal Household Telephone Survey”. The plan requires development of a calibration model to account for consistent differences between the surveys in their statistical estimates of fishing effort.
The Peer Review Workshop will provide an assessment of the model developed by MRIP for this purpose. The product of the Workshop will be a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed calibration model. The panel of reviewers will consist of three persons selected by the Center of Independent Experts, and four persons selected by the regional fishery management councils and ASMFC. The Panel will be chaired by an individual also selected by the councils and ASMFC. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
This workshop will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of initiation of 5-year reviews; request for information.
NMFS announces its intent to conduct 5-year reviews for the endangered Baiji/Chinese River Dolphin/Yangtze River Dolphin (
To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than August 21, 2017. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
You may submit information on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0057 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Ron Dean at the above address, by phone at (301) 427-8403 or
This notice announces our active review of the Baiji/Chinese River Dolphin/Yangtze River Dolphin and the Saimaa seal. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the
Background information on Baiji/Chinese River Dolphin/Yangtze River Dolphin, including the endangered listing, is available on the NMFS Office of Protected Species Web site at:
Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) also requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to protect such species.
To ensure that the 5-year reviews are complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial data, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of Baiji/Chinese River Dolphin/Yangtze River Dolphin, and the Saimaa seal. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important
If you wish to provide information for the 5-year reviews, you may submit your information and materials electronically or via mail (see
16 U.S.C. 1531
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) announces its intent to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) and seeks inquiries and proposals from potential partners. The goal of this CRADA will be the transfer of a one-of-a-kind infrared laser from AMRDEC to the partner's facilities and the cooperative demonstration of a new remote sensing methodology using this laser.
Preliminary inquiries and comments from potential partners must be received by August 1, 2017.
Submit inquiries and comments to U.S. Army RDECOM AMRDEC, ATTN: RDMR-CST (ORTA), 5400 Fowler Road, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 (
Under the proposed agreement, the Army's AMRDEC plans to collaborate with a single academic or industrial partner. Together, the AMRDEC and its CRADA partner will explore and demonstrate the new trace gas remote sensing methodology based on infrared/terahertz double resonance spectroscopy, as described in the cited references below.
The double resonance technique requires a specially designed infrared laser that produces powerful (100 mJ) short pulses (100 ps) of wavelength tunable radiation (9-11 microns). A laser that uniquely matches those requirements was fabricated by STI Optronics, Inc. as part of a DARPA-funded Phase II SBIR contract and delivered to AMRDEC in 2014.
The CRADA partner must have the resources to package, ship, and install this laser in its facilities and operate it in partnership with AMRDEC to demonstrate the double resonance spectroscopic technique in either a simulated atmospheric chamber containing a trace gas and/or in an actual outdoor laser test range in which a trace gas may be safely released and detected.
Ideally, the partner will have a history of performing laboratory and/or outdoor spectroscopic sensing and will have the necessary infrastructure and expertise to operate this laser safely and reliably. As necessary, the partner should be prepared to elicit funding from other sources to support this project and may anticipate active support from AMRDEC in the preparation of such proposals.
AMRDEC, with its CRADA partner, will create a structured and collaborative environment to advance concepts and technologies for this experimental proof of concept demonstration. The desired products of the proposed collaboration are a successful demonstration of the double resonance technique using this laser and quantitative validation of the performance predicted in the cited references. When the CRADA ends, the partner will retain ownership of the laser, which may be used for other applications during and after the CRADA period.
The AMRDEC's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include:
(1) Scientific expertise in foundational molecular spectroscopy and the double resonance technique developed by its researchers and collaborators;
(2) Access to AMRDEC's laboratories and facilities where molecular spectroscopic research is performed;
(3) Cooperation with the partner as they package, ship, and install the laser at the partner's facility; and
(4) Cooperation in the preparation of proposals and mentoring of researchers new to aspects of the proposed project.
The non-Federal party's contributions under the proposed CRADA will include:
(1) Making arrangements and providing funding to package and ship the laser from AMRDEC facilities and install the laser at the partner's facility;
(2) Expert operation and maintenance of this unique laser in support of the proof-of-concept demonstration of this double resonance technique as well as other applications of the laser based on the partner's unique expertise;
(3) Joint publications and/or patents and/or demonstration hardware as well as sharing of the accumulated intellectual property through the terms specified in the CRADA; and
(4) Writing and submitting research proposals for funding of this project to external sponsors, with the full support of AMRDEC.
AMRDEC reserves the right to select for its CRADA partner one or none of the proposals in response to this notice. AMRDEC will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development costs. Proposals (or any other material) submitted in response to this notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be unclassified and have no more than 4 single-sided pages (excluding cover page and resumes). AMRDEC will select proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
(1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
(2) How well they address the following criteria:
(a) Technical capability to satisfy the non-Federal party's described contributions;
(b) Resources available for satisfying the non-Federal party's described contributions; and
(c) Technical expertise/understanding of infrared lasers, ultrafast laser spectroscopy, molecular spectroscopy, and remote sensing, as well as the necessary infrastructure to support a collaborative research project.
This is a technology transfer/development effort. AMRDEC has no plans to procure the technology. Proposals should clearly discuss how the concepts and technologies developed will be supported for the duration of the CRADA and outline plans to use the laser and the jointly
Special consideration will be given to universities and small business firms/consortia, and preference will be given to partners located in the U.S.
The deadline for submitting proposals is August 15, 2017, and the selected partner will be announced by September 1, 2017.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intended disinterment.
Army National Military Cemeteries (ANMC) is honoring the requests of three families from the Northern Arapaho Tribe to disinter the human remains of three Native American children from the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The decedent names are Little Plume (aka Hayes Vanderbilt Friday), Little Chief (aka Dickens Nor), and Horse (aka Horace Washington). The decedents died in the early 1880s while attending the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. ANMC will disinter, transfer custody, transport, and reinter the remains in private cemeteries in Fremont County, Wyoming. This disinterment will be conducted in accordance with Army Regulation 210-190. This is not a Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) action because the remains are not part of a collection as they are interred in graves that are individually marked at the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery.
Disinterment is scheduled to begin on August 8, 2017. Transportation to and re-interment in Fremont County, Wyoming will take place as soon as practical after the disinterment. If other living relatives object to the disinterment of these remains, please provide written objection to Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman at the address listed below prior to July 21, 2017.
Objections from family members and public comments can be mailed to Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman, ANMC Project Manager, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, Virginia 22211 or emailed to
Lieutenant Colonel Brent Kauffman, ANMC Project Manager at the email address listed above.
Additional information related to Native Americans buried at the Carlisle Barracks Post Cemetery can be found at
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of open Federal advisory committee meeting.
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board (Board). This meeting is open to the public. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at
The Army Corps of Engineers, Inland Waterways Users Board will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on July 19, 2017. Public registration will begin at 8:15 a.m.
The Inland Waterways Users Board meeting will be conducted at the Embassy Suites by Hilton Portland—Airport, 7900 NE 82nd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97220, 503-460-3000.
Mr. Mark R. Pointon, the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the committee, in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at
The committee meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 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 § 102-3.150.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
The inventions listed below are assigned to the United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and are available for domestic and foreign licensing by the Department of the Navy.
The following patents are available for licensing: Patent No. 9,647,343 (Navy Case No. 200337): PROCESS FOR ASSEMBLING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF MULTI-ELEMENT ASSEMBLIES TO PREDETERMINED TOLERANCES AND ALIGNMENTS USING A RECONFIGURABLE ASSEMBLING AND ALIGNMENT APPARATUS// and Patent No. 9,651,509 (Navy Case No. 103114): METHOD FOR INVESTIGATING EARLY LINER COLLAPSE IN A SHAPED CHARGE.
Requests for copies of the patents cited should be directed to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.
Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, Email
35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 21, 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 Melanie Ali, 202-245-8345.
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 (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 21, 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 Meredith Bachman, 202-245-7494.
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.
Text messaging interventions are becoming increasingly popular—in fields such as public health and prevention—due to their low cost, scalability, and evidence of impact. School districts have increasing capacity to use technology to implement messaging interventions. Thus, an
To our knowledge, this project is the first multidistrict random assignment study of the impact of a text messaging intervention for parents on student attendance and achievement. In addition, consistent with the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Pub. L. 113-235), which provides the legislative authority to conduct this study, this study will focus on low-performing schools with high levels of poverty and student absenteeism.
Take notice that on June 8, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, and 157.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000. Columbia requests authorization to construct and operate one new storage well and related appurtenances at Columbia's Pavonia Storage Field located in Ashland and Richland Counties, Ohio, all as more fully set forth in the application which is open to the public for inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Robert D. Jackson, Manager, Certificates & Regulatory Administration, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, at (832) 320-5487 or FAX (832) 320-6487, or
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that on June 5, 2017, 1057533 Alberta Ltd. (Alberta Ltd.), 1500, 700 2nd Street SW., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2W1 Canada, and 1978740 Alberta Ltd. (Spartan US), 500, 850 2nd Street SW., Calgary, Alberta, T2P 0R8 Canada, filed the above referenced docket an application, pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Section 153 of the Commission's regulations, for the importation of natural gas and a Presidential Permit to operate and maintain the import facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be also viewed on the web at
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Gregory Junge, Esq., Van Ness Feldman LLP, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street NW., Washington, DC 20007 or call (202) 298-1945 or Jon Lowes, Vice President, Land, Harvest Operations Corp., 1500, 700 2nd Street SW., Calgary, AB Canada T2P 2W1 or call (403) 231-5253.
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the e-Filing link.
Take notice that the following application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: July 17, 2017.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
On June 6, 2017, as supplemented on June 9, 2017, Davis & Weber Counties Canal Company filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed Davis & Weber Canal Micro-Hydropower Project would have an installed capacity of 20 kilowatts (kW), and would be located within the existing Davis & Weber Canal located in South Weber, Davis County, Utah.
A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.
Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 31, 2017, Midship Pipeline Company, LLC (Midship), 700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, TX 77002, filed in Docket No. CP17-458-000, an application, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to construct, own and operate a new 199.4-mile natural gas pipeline system (Midcontinent Supply Header Interstate Pipeline Project or Midship Project). The project also includes three new mainline compressor stations and one lateral booster station rated for a total of 118,440 horsepower (hp), metering and regulating stations, and appurtenant facilities with a total system capacity of 1,440 MMcf/d. The project will also include 20.3 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline lateral in Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, and 13.6 miles of 16-inch diameter pipeline lateral in Stephens, Carter, and Garvin Counties Oklahoma. The proposed project will provide firm transportation capacity from the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province (SCOOP) and the Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher (STACK) plays in the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma to existing natural gas pipelines near Bennington, Oklahoma for transport to growing Gulf Coast and Southeast markets.
Midship also requests a blanket certificate pursuant to Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's regulations, authorizing Midship to construct and operate certain facilities as described in Part 157, Subpart F, and a blanket certificate pursuant to Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations, authorizing Midship to provide open access firm and interruptible interstate natural gas transportation and parking
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Karri Mahmoud, Director, Regulatory Project Development, 700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002, or by calling (713) 375-5000 (telephone),
On November 9, 2016, the Commission staff granted Midship's request to utilize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF17-3-000 to staff activities involving the project. Now, as of the filing of this application on May 31, 2017, the NEPA Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket No. CP17-458-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.
Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper; see, 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
The Environmental Protection Agency is announcing a cost recovery settlement with the City of Beatrice, Nebraska and Centel Corporation, for the compromise of past response costs concerning the Beatrice Former Manufactured Gas Plant Superfund Site in Beatrice, Nebraska.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2017
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the EPA Region 7 office, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from the Regional Hearing Clerk, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219, (913) 551-7567 or email address
Barbara L. Peterson, at telephone: (913) 551-7277; fax number: (913) 551-7925/Attn: Barbara Peterson; email address:
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement with the City of Beatrice, Nebraska and Centel Corporation, for the compromise of past response costs concerning the Beatrice Former Manufactured Gas Plant Superfund Site in Beatrice, Nebraska. The settlement includes a covenant not
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before July 21, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
We are making the following specific changes to FCC Form 303-S:
On page 5 of the form, we are removing item 4 (Violent Programming).
On page 25 of the instructions, we are removing the paragraph titled “Item 4: Violent Programming.”
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 21, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, June 22, 2017 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.
The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at
For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written comments should be submitted on or before August 21, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
In connection with this new service, the Commission developed a new FCC Form 319, Application for a Low Power FM Broadcast Station License. FCC Form 319 is required to apply for a license for a new or modified Low Power FM (LPFM) station.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 21, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
On April 20, 2017, the Commission adopted the
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before August 21, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than July 7, 2017.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
1.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice and reopening of comment period.
On March 15, 2017 the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published a notice in the
Electronic or written comments must be received by July 21, 2017.
Melissa Seaton, NIOSH, Education and Information Division, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-32, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 533-8248, Fax (513) 533-8230 (not toll free numbers), email
You may submit comments, identified by CDC-2017-0028 and Docket Number NIOSH-290, by either of the following two methods:
•
•
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public workshop; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is/are announcing a public workshop regarding scientific and clinical trial design considerations for the development of new tuberculosis (TB) treatment regimens. This public workshop is intended to provide information for and gain perspective from health care providers, other U.S. Government Agencies, academic experts, industry, and other stakeholders regarding scientific and clinical trial design considerations related to the development of new TB regimens.
The public workshop will be held on July 19, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public workshop by August 1, 2017. See the
The public workshop will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Entrance for the public workshop participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and security information, please refer to
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before August 1, 2017. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• 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
Lori Benner and/or Jessica Barnes, Center for
FDA is announcing a public workshop regarding scientific and clinical trial design considerations for the development of new TB drug regimens. As such, discussions will focus on drug development programs and studies intended to evaluate shorter and better tolerated TB drug regimens and new regimens that have efficacy for treatment of sensitive and drug-resistant TB.
The FDA is conducting this workshop to focus on scientific considerations needed to advance the development of new TB treatment regimens. FDA is particularly interested in discussing pre-clinical and clinical considerations relevant to the development of new TB treatment regimens. Discussions are planned around the following topics:
• Current landscape and challenges in TB drug development.
• In vitro and in vivo nonclinical models that may help select or deselect new investigational TB drug regimens to enter into clinical development.
• Biomarkers that may help predict responses to therapy at a time earlier than standard liquid or solid culture results would allow.
• Surrogate endpoints that may be used to predict clinical benefit.
• An update on TB diagnostics.
• Options for assessing the contribution of individual drugs in a new TB treatment regimen.
• Clinical trial design challenges in pediatric and special populations.
The Agency encourages health care providers, other U.S. Government Agencies, academic experts, industry, and other stakeholders to attend this public workshop.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Jessica Barnes or Lori Benner (see
If you have never attended a Connect Pro event before, please test your connection at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 121 new drug applications (NDAs) and 161 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants. The holders of the applications notified the Agency in writing that the drug products were no longer marketed and requested that the approval of the applications be withdrawn.
The withdrawal is effective on July 21, 2017.
Florine P. Purdie, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6248, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3601.
The holders of the applications listed in table 1 in this document have informed FDA that these drug products are no longer marketed and have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the applications under the process in § 314.150(c) (21 CFR 314.150(c)). The applicants have also, by their requests, waived their opportunity for a hearing. Withdrawal of approval of an application or abbreviated application under § 314.150(c) is without prejudice to refiling.
Therefore, under authority delegated to the Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, by the Commissioner, approval of the applications listed in table 1, and all amendments and supplements thereto, is hereby withdrawn. Introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of products without approved new drug applications violates section 301(a) and (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (d)). Drug products that are listed in table 1 that are in inventory on the date that this notice becomes effective (see the
Office of Research Integrity, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of award of a single-source unsolicited grant to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announces the award of a single-source, grant in response to an unsolicited proposal from Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. The proposal submitted was not solicited either formally or informally by any federal government official.
Kathryn Partin at
ORI performed an objective review of the unsolicited proposal from Washington University to expand and evaluate the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program (PI Program), the only remediation program for researchers who violate expectations for the responsible conduct of research. Based on an external and internal review of the proposal, ORI determined that it has merit.
There is a strategic importance of access to this type of training. Research misconduct involving Public Health Service (PHS) support is contrary to the interests of PHS and the federal government, the health and safety of the public, the integrity of research, and the conservation of public funds. Participants in the PI Program will demonstrate better research compliance and integrity outcomes, such as developing better, more ethical research practices. These outcomes will promote research integrity and help prevent future research misconduct.
This award is being made non-competitively because there is no current, pending, or planned funding opportunity announcement under which this proposal could be competed. ORI has identified three additional key reasons to support rationale for awarding this unsolicited proposal:
1. ORI's federal regulation directs us to focus on remediation of Respondents who have been found to commit research misconduct, and the PI Program permits a pathway for that remediation after any sanctions have been completed.
2. Washington University is uniquely positioned to provide this type of training. As the only remediation program for researchers, the grantee has developed a comprehensive and intensive program that will improve research compliance and integrity outcomes.
3. With this experience, Washington University is well known in the research community and is an important service to PHS funded institutions. The program has a robust and unique process for assessment and data analysis.
Sec. 301 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 241.
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 section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Complementary and Integrative Health.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is directed by Congress through its FY 2016 Omnibus bill, Public Law 114-113, to set aside ten percent of the Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) allocation for each state to support evidence-based programs that provide treatment for those with early serious mental illness (SMI) and a first episode psychosis (FEP)—an increase from the previous five percent set aside.
The purpose of this 3-year evaluation is to assess the relationship between fidelity of selected coordinated specialty care (CSC) programs supported with Mental Health Block Grant (MHBG) Ten Percent Set Aside funding and participant outcomes. There are approximately 250 sites implementing CSC programs with MHBG ten percent set aside funding. All 250 sites will be asked to report on their implementation through an online survey. Up to 32 CSC sites across the nation will be recruited to participate in a process and outcome evaluation. The data collection activities for the Mental Health Block Grant Ten Percent Set Aside Evaluation will include the following seven data collection activities:
Please note this notice supersedes the one that was published on 6/12/15.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by July 21, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is a survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years old or older. The data are used to determine the prevalence of use of tobacco products, alcohol, illicit substances, and illicit use of prescription drugs. The results are used by SAMHSA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), federal government agencies, and other organizations and researchers to establish policy, direct program activities, and better allocate resources.
While NSDUH must be updated periodically to reflect changing substance use and mental health issues and to continue producing current data, for the 2018 NSDUH only the following minor changes are planned: (1) At the request of ONDCP, re-inserted the marijuana marketplace module, previously included in the 2014 NSDUH (as well as prior years), into the respondent-administered portion of the 2018 questionnaire; (2) the addition of four new questions, asked only of respondents age 18 and older, about the perception of problems with and recovery from drug/alcohol and mental health problems; and (3) included other minor wording changes to improve the flow of the interview, increase respondent comprehension or to be consistent with text in other questions.
The marijuana marketplace module consists of a series of questions that seek to gather data such as the location, quantity, cost and type of marijuana being purchased across the nation. This module is unchanged from the version last included in the 2014 NSDUH. As with all NSDUH/NHSDA surveys conducted since 1999, the sample size of the survey for 2018 will be sufficient to permit prevalence estimates for each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Prior to 2002, the NSDUH was referred to as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA).
The total annual burden estimate is shown below.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by July 21, 2017 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
This notice announces that HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has the authority to accept unsolicited research proposals that address current research priorities. In accordance with statutory requirements, the research projects must be funded at least 50 percent by philanthropic entities or Federal, state, or local government agencies. This notice announces that HUD is accepting research proposals and provides a general description of information that should be included in any research proposal.
Proposals may be submitted at any time and will be evaluated as they are received. Available funds will be awarded as proposals are received, evaluated, and approved, until funds are exhausted.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by email, at:
Kinnard Wright, Grant Specialist, Room 8226, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-7495, or Madlyn Wohlman-Rodriguez, Grant Specialist, Room 8226, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-5939. ATTENTION: Persons with speech or hearing impairments may call the Federal Relay Service TTY at 800-877-8339.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, (Pub. L. 115-31, enacted May 5, 2017) (FY 2017 appropriation) authorizes PD&R to enter non-competitive cooperative agreements for research projects that are aligned with PD&R's research priorities and that will help inform HUD's policies and programs
HUD developed the Research Partnerships vehicle to allow greater flexibility in addressing important policy questions and to better utilize external expertise in evaluating the local innovations and effectiveness of programs impacting residents of urban, suburban, rural and tribal areas. Through this notice, HUD can accept unsolicited research proposals that address current research priorities and allow PD&R to participate in innovative research projects that inform HUD's policies and programs. These projects are meant to align with PD&R's research priorities and help HUD answer key policy and programmatic questions in ways that can inform new policy and program development efforts.
The documents that establish a framework for HUD's research priorities are the
The authority that Congress provided HUD to enter noncompetitive cooperative agreements for research is a central tool for fulfilling the
A.
1. Improving outcomes for struggling homeowners and communities in the areas of foreclosures, mortgage modification protocols, and real-estate owned properties;
2. Finding ways that are safer for both borrowers and lenders to extend mortgage credit to first-time homebuyers and homeowners with less-than-stellar credit;
3. Updating federal support structures for single-family and multifamily housing finance in a reformed housing finance system; and
4. Strengthening models of public-private partnership to increase availability of mortgage capital and ensure sustained homeownership and wealth accumulation by low-income and disadvantaged homebuyers.
B.
1. Improving program operations and responses to changing market conditions;
2. Identifying rent subsidy approaches that could meet housing needs more efficiently and support self-sufficiency, such as by leveraging opportunities for rent reform experiments when extending Moving To Work flexibilities to additional housing agencies;
3. Better understanding how HUD's programs and tenant outcomes are affected by tenant and landlord behavior, supports, and the framing of choices; and
4. Strengthening models of public-private partnership to increase production and preservation of decent, safe, and affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity.
C.
1. Improving educational outcomes of children and adults, and early learning, child development, and parenting;
2. Improving health and wellness outcomes and integration with health systems;
3. Increasing economic security and self-sufficiency, including work participation and asset development by able-bodied residents; and
4. Improving housing stability for vulnerable populations, including the elderly, people with disabilities, homeless families and individuals, and those individuals and families at risk of becoming homeless.
D.
1. Leveraging cost-effective housing technology in HUD-funded housing or other housing to reduce energy costs, improve disaster resilience, and improve tenant outcomes;
2. Cost-effective approaches to address the public health burden of lead paint, lead dust in soil, and asthma triggers in housing and communities;
3. Strengthening fair housing outcomes in local markets, including through public-private partnerships;
4. Strengthening community resilience in the face of climate change, disasters, pestilence and energy shocks; and
5. Promoting reduction of regulatory barriers to affordable housing and integrated mixed-income communities.
HUD has made, and continues to make, significant investments in “Research Assets,” as described below, including program demonstrations and in the production of datasets. PD&R is interested in seeing these assets leveraged in ways that may, or may not, be specifically referenced in the
A.
B.
C.
HUD and the Census Bureau have entered an interagency agreement for the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications (CARRA) to link data from demonstrations and administrative systems with survey data and other administrative records. PD&R encourages research partnerships that effectively use data assets through public use data or restricted access arrangements with CARRA or NCHS research data centers. Further information is available at:
HUD will require successful applicants to comply with requirements of the federal Common Rule (24 CFR part 60) for protecting human research subjects when applicable. Compliance may require grantees to seek review and approval of research plans by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). For research requiring an IRB review, work plans shall identify the IRB that the awardee will use and factor in the necessary cost and time involved in that review. HUD will require awardees to provide appropriate assurances and certifications of compliance before human subject's research begins.
A.
B.
C.
D. Upon receipt, the application will be forwarded to the appropriate PD&R office for review and approval. A HUD data license is not required to use the HUD-NCHS linked datasets, but a HUD research partnership can support waivers of NCHS fees for the research data center if a research proposal is accepted by NCHS.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a. Clearly and thoroughly describe your proposed study and its design, and identify the major objectives;
b. The study should be presented as a logical sequence of steps or phases with individual tasks described for each phase;
c. Your narrative should reflect the relevant literature, which should be thoroughly cited in your application. Your proposed study will be judged in part on the soundness of the underlying body of research upon which it is based and the clarity and soundness of your summary and interpretation of this research base;
d. Describe the methodological and statistical basis for your study design and demonstrate that you would have adequate statistical power to test your stated hypotheses and achieve your study objectives;
e. Discuss your plans for data management, analysis, and archiving;
f. You should identify any important “decision points” in your study plan;
g. You should describe/list deliverables and associated timeframes; and
h. You should demonstrate that it is clearly feasible to complete the study within the proposed period of performance and successfully achieve your objectives.
5.
C.
1. Proposals that meet all the threshold requirements will be eligible for review and rating.
2. Proposals will be reviewed by individuals who are knowledgeable in the field covered by the research proposal.
3. As required by the statutory authority within the appropriations bill, HUD will report each award provided through a cooperative agreement in the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Sub-award Reporting System created under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice announces the monthly per unit fee rates for use in determining the on-going administrative fees for housing agencies administering the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), 5 Year Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including Single Room Occupancy, during calendar year (CY) 2017.
Miguel Fontanez, Director, Housing Voucher Financial Management Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 4222, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone number 202-402-2934. (This is not a toll-free number). Hearing or speech impaired individuals may call TTY number 1 (800) 877-8337.
This Notice provides the Department's methodology used to determine the CY 2017 administrative fee rates by area, which the Office of Housing Voucher Programs (OHVP) will use to compensate public housing agencies (PHA) for administering the HCV programs.
For CY 2017, in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31), administrative fees will be earned on the basis of vouchers leased as of the first day of each month. This data will be extracted from the Voucher Management System (VMS) at the close of each reporting cycle and validated prior to use.
Two fee rates are provided for each PHA. The first rate, Column A, applies to the first 7200 voucher unit months leased in CY 2017. The second rate, Column B, applies to all remaining voucher unit months leased in CY 2017.
The fee rates established for CY 2017, using the standard procedures, in some
The fee rates for each PHA are generally those rates covering the fee areas in which each PHA has the greatest proportion of its participants, based on Public Housing Information Center (PIC) data submitted by the PHA. In some cases, PHAs have participants in more than one fee area. If such a PHA so chooses, the PHA may request that the Department establish a blended fee rate schedule that will consider proportionately all areas in which participants are located. Once a blended rate schedule is established, it will be used to determine the PHA's fee eligibility for all months in CY 2017. The PHAs were advised via PIH Notice 2017-07, and other electronic communications on June 9 and June 13, 2017, about the terms for applying for blended fee rates and the deadline date for submitting such requests.
PHAs that operate over a large geographic area, defined as multiple counties, may request a higher administrative fee rate if eligible under the circumstance. The PHAs were advised via PIH Notice 2017-07, and via electronic communication on June 13, 2017, about the terms for applying for higher fee rates and the deadline date for submitting such requests. This information will also be described in the CY 2017 funding implementation notice.
Accordingly, the Department issues the monthly per voucher unit fee rates to be used to determine PHA administrative fee eligibility for the programs identified in this Notice. These fee rates are posted on HUD's Web site at:
Any questions concerning this Notice should be directed to the PHA's assigned representative at the Financial Management Center or to the Financial Management Division at
Where an MTW Agency has an alternative formula for calculating HCV Administrative Fees in Attachment A of their MTW Agreements, HUD will continue to calculate the HCV Administrative Fees in accordance with that MTW Agreement provision.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is acquired that allows such activities.
We must receive comments or requests for documents on or before July 21, 2017.
•
•
When submitting comments, please indicate the name of the applicant and the PRT# you are commenting on. We will post all comments on
Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2023; facsimile 703-358-2280.
Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under
Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see
Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the street address listed under
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite the public to comment on applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to import two dead Cheetah (
The applicant requests a permit to export one captive born male babirusa (
The applicant requests authorization to import biological samples for wild and captive-held common Chimpanzee (
The applicant requests a permit to export 20 vials of Siberian crane (
The applicant requests a renewal of his captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance propagation or survival of the species: Barasingha (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following species to enhance the propagation or survival of the species: Galapagos giant tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for red siskins (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the golden parakeet (
The applicant requests amendment of a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to add North Sulawesi babirusa (
The applicant requests a captive-bred wildlife registration under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for radiated tortoise (
On May 26, 2017, we published a
The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
If the Service decides to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice by one of the methods listed in
If you submit a comment via
We will post all hardcopy comments on
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on federally listed American burying beetle incidental take permit applications. The applicants anticipate American burying beetle take as a result of impacts to habitat the species uses for breeding, feeding, and sheltering in Oklahoma. The take would be incidental to the applicants' activities associated with oil and gas well field and pipeline infrastructure (gathering, transmission, and distribution), including geophysical exploration (seismic), construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation. If approved, the permits would be issued under the approved
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received on or before July 21, 2017.
You may obtain copies of all documents and submit comments on the applicants' incidental take permit (ITP) applications by one of the following methods. Please refer to the proposed permit number when requesting documents or submitting comments.
○
○
Marty Tuegel, Branch Chief, by U.S. mail at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Review Division, P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM 87103; or by telephone at 505-248-6651.
Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
If approved, the permits would be issued to the applicant under the
We invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, and the public to comment on the following applications under the ICP, for incidentally taking the federally listed American burying beetle. Please refer to the appropriate permit number (
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Applicant requests a permit for oil and gas upstream and midstream production, including oil and gas well field infrastructure geophysical exploration (seismic) and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning, as well as oil and gas gathering, transmission, and distribution pipeline infrastructure construction, maintenance, operation, repair, decommissioning, and reclamation in Oklahoma.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes an amendment to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverages and Prohibited Substances, which was published in the
This Amendment shall become effective July 21, 2017.
Ms. Sharlot Johnson, Tribal Government Services Officer, Western Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 2600 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004, Telephone: (602) 379-6786, Fax: (602) 379-4100.
Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in
This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 209 DM 81. I certify that the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, duly adopted this amendment to the Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverages and Prohibited Substances, on February 22, 2017.
Section 14-55 of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Code of Ordinances shall be amended by adding a new subsection (7).
The director may issue a Sport Stadium/Entertainment Venue license to any professional sports stadium or arena, or an entertainment venue (bowling alley, concert hall, theatre, etc) that is otherwise qualified to hold a license.
The holder of a Sport Stadium/Entertainment Venue license is authorized to sell and serve alcoholic beverages solely for consumption on the licensed premises. For the purposes of this section, the term “licensed premises” includes all public areas of the venue, food service facilities, outdoor patio enclosures, outdoor pool areas, and private banquet or meeting rooms.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments for 1029-0114.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing that the information collection request for its Technical Evaluation customer surveys has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burden and cost. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0114 and is on the forms as well as the expiration date.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, public comments should be submitted to OMB by July 21, 2017, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. OSMRE has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in a series of technical evaluation customer surveys. OSMRE is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0114.
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the addresses listed under
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments for 1029-0055.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request renewed approval for the collection of information for states or Indian tribes, pursuant to an approved reclamation program, to use police powers, if necessary, to effect entry upon private lands to conduct reclamation activities or exploratory studies if the landowner's consent is refused or the landowner is not available. The collection described below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The information collection request describes the nature of the information collection and the expected burdens and costs.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, your comments should
Your comments should be submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Department of the Interior Desk Officer, via email to
To receive a copy of the information collection request, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. We have submitted a request to OMB to approve the collection of information for 30 CFR part 877—Rights of Entry. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is displayed in 30 CFR 877.10 (1029-0055).
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), we published a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments for 1029-0067.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing that the information collection request for the restriction on financial interests of State employees has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and reauthorization. The information collection package was previously approved and assigned clearance number 1029-0067. This notice describes the nature of the information collection activity and the expected burden and cost.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection, but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, you should submit your comments to OMB by July 21, 2017, in order to be assured of consideration.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Department of the Interior Desk Officer, by telefax at (202) 395-5806 or via email at
To request a copy of the information collection package, contact John Trelease at (202) 208-2783, or electronically at
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. We have submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval for the collection of information for 30 CFR 705 and the Form OSM-23, Restriction on financial interests of State employees. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a
Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information, to the addresses listed under
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Notice and request for comments for 1029-0118.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) is announcing its intention to request continued approval for the collection of information which relates to a citizen's written request for a Federal inspection.
Comments on the proposed information collection must be received by August 21, 2017, to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be mailed to John Trelease, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 1951 Constitution Ave. NW., Room 203—SIB, Washington, DC 20240. Comments may also be submitted electronically to
To receive a copy of the information collection request contact, John Trelease at (202) 208-2783 or by email at
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d)]. This notice identifies information collection that OSMRE will be submitting to OMB for approval. This collection is contained in 30 CFR 842, Federal inspections and monitoring.
OSMRE will revise burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on revised estimates of burden or respondents. OSMRE will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for 30 CFR 842 is 1029-0118.
Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany OSMRE's submission of the information collection request to OMB.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
This notice provides the public with 60 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:
The authorities for this action are the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 1201
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 11) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Toshiba Memory Corporation of Tokyo, Japan (“Toshiba Memory”) as a respondent to the investigation.
Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1046 on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Macronix International Co., Ltd. of Hsin-chu, Taiwan and Macronix America, Inc. of Milpitas, California (collectively, “Macronix”). 82 FR 17687-88 (Apr. 12, 2017). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain non-volatile memory devices and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,552,360; U.S. Patent No. 6,788,602; and U.S. Patent No. 8,035,417. The notice of investigation named the following respondents: Toshiba Corporation of Tokyo, Japan; Toshiba America, Inc. of New York, New York; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. of Irvine, California; Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. of Irvine, California; and Toshiba Information Equipment (Philippines), Inc. of Binan, Philippines. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is a party to the investigation.
On May 22, 2017, Macronix moved for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Toshiba Memory as a respondent to the investigation and stating that respondents do not oppose the motion. On May 24, 2017, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. No other responses to the motion were filed.
On June 1, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the unopposed motion. The ALJ found that pursuant to Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)), good cause exists to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add Toshiba Memory as a respondent. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 7) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on May 31, 2017, granting Steptoe & Johnson LLP's (“Steptoe”) motion to intervene for the limited purpose of responding to a disqualification motion.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 12, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Broadcom Corporation (“Broadcom”) of Irvine, California. 82 FR 17688. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain semiconductor devices and consumer audiovisual products containing the same that infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,310,104; 7,342,967;
On May 22, 2017, LG moved to disqualify Broadcom's counsel, Steptoe, based on an alleged conflict of interest caused by Steptoe's representation of LG. On May 24, 2017, Steptoe filed an unopposed motion to intervene for the limited purpose of responding to the disqualification motion.
On May 31, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting Steptoe's motion. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until August 21, 2017.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Gary R. Owen, Chief, Office of Congressional & Public Affairs, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 895, 29 U.S.C. 1142, provides for the establishment of an Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans (the Council), which is to consist of 15 members to be appointed by the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) as follows: Three representatives of employee organizations (at least one of whom shall be a representative of an organization whose members are participants in a multiemployer plan); three representatives of employers (at least one of whom shall be a representative of employers maintaining or contributing to multiemployer plans); one representative each from the fields of insurance, corporate trust, actuarial counseling, investment counseling, investment management, and accounting; and three representatives from the general public (one of whom
Council members shall be persons qualified to appraise the programs instituted under ERISA. Appointments are for terms of three years. The prescribed duties of the Council are to advise the Secretary with respect to the carrying out of his or her functions under ERISA, and to submit to the Secretary, or his or her designee, recommendations with respect thereto. The Council will meet at least four times each year.
The terms of five members of the Council expire at the end of this year. The groups or fields they represent are as follows: (1) Employee organizations; (2) employers; (3) corporate trust; (4) investment management; and (5) the general public. The Department of Labor is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Council.
Accordingly, notice is hereby given that any person or organization desiring to nominate one or more individuals for appointment to the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to represent any of the groups or fields specified in the preceding paragraph may submit nominations to Larry Good, Council Executive Secretary, Frances Perkins Building, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Suite N-5623, Washington, DC 20210, or as email attachments to
Nominations, including supporting letters, should:
• State the person's qualifications to serve on the Council.
• State that the candidate will accept appointment to the Council if offered.
• Include which of the five positions (representing groups or fields) the candidate is nominated to fill.
• Include the nominee's full name, work affiliation, mailing address, phone number, and email address.
• Include the nominator's full name, mailing address, phone number, and email address.
• Include the nominator's signature, whether sent by email or otherwise.
In selecting Council members, the Secretary of Labor will consider individuals nominated in response to this
Nominees will be contacted to provide information on their political affiliation and their status as registered lobbyists. Anyone currently subject to federal registration requirements as a lobbyist is not eligible for appointment. Nominees should be aware of the time commitment for attending meetings and actively participating in the work of the Council. Historically, this has meant a commitment of at least 20 days per year. The Department of Labor has a process for vetting nominees under consideration for appointment.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Curtis-Strauss LLC for expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before July 6, 2017.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is providing notice that Curtis-Strauss LLC (CSL), is applying for expansion of its current recognition as an NRTL. CSL requests the addition of five test standards to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
CSL currently has one facility (site) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Curtis-Strauss LLC, Littleton Distribution Center, One Distribution Center Circle, Suite #1, Littleton, MA 01460. A complete list of CSL's scope of recognition is available at
CSL submitted an application, dated December 30, 2016 (OSHA-2009-0026-0073), to expand its recognition to include five additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in CSL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
CSL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of its scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicates that CSL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding its recognition to include the addition of these five test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of CSL's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether CSL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request. Commenters must submit the written request for an extension by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if the request is not adequately justified. To obtain or review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Room N-3508, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. These materials also are available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and, after addressing the issues raised by these comments, will recommend to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health whether to grant CSL's application for expansion of its scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for SGS North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on June 21, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of SGS North America, Inc. (SGS), as an NRTL. SGS's expansion covers the addition of two test standards to its scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification of the products.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
SGS submitted an application, dated May 28, 2014, (OSHA-2006-0040-0034) to expand its recognition to include two additional test standards. OSHA staff detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing SGS's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the SGS's application, go to
OSHA staff examined SGS's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that SGS meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant SGS's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of SGS's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, SGS must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. SGS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its
2. SGS must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. SGS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on SGS's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of SGS, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV SUD America, Inc. as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on June 21, 2017.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUV SUD) as an NRTL. TUV SUD's expansion covers the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites to its NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVAM submitted an application, dated May 19, 2015 (OSHA-2007-0043-0020), to expand its recognition to include the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites located at: TUV SUD, Ridlerstrasse 65, D-80339, Munich, Germany; and TUV SUD, Daimlerstrasse 11, D-85748, Garching, Germany. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed on-site reviews of TUVAM's Munich testing and certification facility on June 6, 2016 and TUVAM's Garching testing and certification facility on June 7, 2016 and recommended expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include these two sites.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to TUVAM's application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVAM's expansion application, conducted two detailed on-site assessments, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVAM's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include the sites at TUVAM Munich, Munich, Germany and TUVAM Garching, Garching, Germany as listed above. OSHA's recognition of these sites limits TUVAM to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in TUVAM's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVAM must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in
2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of TUVAM, subject to the limitation and conditions specified above.
Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Notices, Instructions and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations.”
Submit comments by August 21, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0122 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-2017-0122 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions 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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material.”
Submit comments by August 21, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Office, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0263 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-2016-0263 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Grant and Cooperative Agreement Provisions.”
Submit comments by August 21, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0223 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-2016-0223 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions 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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of intent to request extension of OMB approval without change.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) intends to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of the collection of information on qualitative feedback on PBGC's service delivery (OMB Control Number 1212-0066; expires August 31, 2017). This notice informs the public of PBGC's intent and solicits comments on the proposed information collection. This collection of information was developed as part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process for seeking feedback from the public on service delivery.
Comments should be submitted by August 21, 2017.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Comments received, including personal information provided, will be posted to
Copies of this collection of information may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel at the above address or calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.)
Jo Amato Burns (
The information collection activity will gather qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with PBGC's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback means information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but the information requests are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results generalizable to the population of interest. This feedback provides insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provides early warnings of issues with service, and focuses attention on areas where changes in PBGC's communication with the public, in training of staff, or in operations might improve the delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between PBGC and its customers and stakeholders. These collections also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
The solicitation of feedback targets areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this information were not collected,
PBGC only submits a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are non-controversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency;
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of interest.
As noted, feedback collected under this generic clearance does not produce results generalizable to the population of interest. 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. Collections with such objectives require more rigorous designs that address: The target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
Annually, over the next three years, PBGC estimates that it will conduct three activities involving about 1,630 respondents, each of whom will provide one response. The number of respondents will vary by activity: 40 for usability testing, 90 for focus groups (nine groups of ten respondents), and 1,500 for customer satisfaction surveys.
PBGC estimates the annual burden of this collection of information as 635 hours: 2 hours per response for usability testing (total 80 hours); 2 hours per response for focus groups (total 180 hours); and 15 minutes per response for customer satisfaction surveys (total 375 hours).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
PBGC is soliciting public comments to—
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of request for extension of OMB approval.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extend approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, of collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans. This notice informs the public of PBGC's request and solicits public comment on the collections of information.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 21, 2017.
Comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, via electronic mail at
A copy of PBGC's request may be obtained without charge by writing to the Disclosure Division of the Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026, or by calling 202-326-4040 during normal business hours. (TTY and TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4040.) The request is also available at
Hilary Duke (
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved and issued control numbers for seven collections of information in PBGC's regulations on multiemployer plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). These collections of information are described below. OMB approvals for these collections of information expire June 30, 2017. PBGC is requesting that OMB extend its approval of these collections of information for three years.
The collections of information for which PBGC is requesting extension of OMB approval are as follows:
Sections 4203(f) and 4208(e)(3) of ERISA allow PBGC to permit a multiemployer plan to adopt special rules for determining whether a withdrawal from the plan has occurred, subject to PBGC approval. Section 4203(f) further provides that the regulations may permit use of special rules (1) only in industries that PBGC finds have appropriate characteristics and (2) only in instances where PBGC determines that use of such rules will not pose a significant risk to the multiemployer insurance system administered by PBGC.
PBGC's regulation on Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR part 4203) specifies the information that a plan that adopts special rules must submit to PBGC about the rules, the plan, and the industry in which the plan operates. PBGC uses the information to determine whether the rules are appropriate for the industry in which the plan functions and do not pose a significant risk to the insurance system.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits a request each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is two hours and $5,000.
If an employer's covered operations or contribution obligation under a plan ceases, the employer must generally pay withdrawal liability to the plan. Section 4204 of ERISA provides an exception, under certain conditions, where the cessation results from a sale of assets. Among other things, the buyer must furnish a bond or escrow, and the sale contract must provide for secondary liability of the seller.
PBGC's regulation on Variances for Sale of Assets (29 CFR part 4204) establishes general variances (rules for avoiding the bond/escrow and sale-contract requirements) and authorizes plans to determine whether the variances apply in particular cases. It also allows buyers and sellers to request individual variances from PBGC. Plans and PBGC use the information to determine whether employers qualify for variances. PBGC estimates that each year, 100 employers submit, and 100 plans respond to, variance requests under the regulation, and one employer submits a variance request to PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 1,050 hours and $501,000.
Section 4207 of ERISA allows PBGC to provide for abatement of an employer's complete withdrawal liability, and for plan adoption of alternative abatement rules, where appropriate.
Under PBGC's regulation on Reduction or Waiver of Complete Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4207), an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of complete withdrawal liability, and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.5 hours and $400.
Section 4208 of ERISA provides for abatement, in certain circumstances, of an employer's partial withdrawal liability and authorizes PBGC to issue additional partial withdrawal liability abatement rules.
Under PBGC's regulation on Reduction or Waiver of Partial Withdrawal Liability (29 CFR part 4208), an employer applies to a plan for an abatement determination, providing information the plan needs to determine whether withdrawal liability should be abated, and the plan notifies the employer of its determination. The employer may, pending plan action, furnish a bond or escrow instead of making withdrawal liability payments, and must notify the plan if it does so. When the plan then makes its determination, it must so notify the bonding or escrow agent.
The regulation also permits plans to adopt their own abatement rules and request PBGC approval. PBGC uses the information in such a request to determine whether the amendment should be approved.
PBGC estimates that each year, at most one employer submits, and one plan responds to, an application for abatement of partial withdrawal liability and no plan sponsors request approval of plan abatement rules from PBGC. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.50 hours and $400.
Section 4211(c)(5)(A) of ERISA requires PBGC to prescribe how plans can, with PBGC approval, change the way they allocate unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers for purposes of calculating withdrawal liability.
PBGC's regulation on Allocating Unfunded Vested Benefits to Withdrawing Employers (29 CFR part 4211) prescribes the information that must be submitted to PBGC by a plan seeking such approval. PBGC uses the information to determine how the amendment changes the way the plan allocates unfunded vested benefits and how it will affect the risk of loss to plan participants and PBGC.
PBGC estimates that 10 plan sponsors submit approval requests each year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 100 hours and $100,000.
Section 4219(c)(1)(D) of ERISA requires that PBGC prescribe regulations for the allocation of a plan's total unfunded vested benefits in the event of a “mass withdrawal.” A mass withdrawal occurs in two situations: the termination of a plan by the withdrawal of every employer from the plan and the withdrawal of substantially all employers from the plan pursuant to an agreement or arrangement to withdraw. ERISA section 4209(c) deals with an employer's liability for de minimis amounts if substantially all employers withdraw, regardless of the occurrence of a mass withdrawal.
The reporting requirements in PBGC's regulation on Notice, Collection, and Redetermination of Withdrawal
PBGC estimates that each year there are six mass withdrawals and three withdrawals in which substantially all employers withdraw. The plan sponsor of a plan subject to a withdrawal covered by the regulation provides notices of the withdrawal to PBGC and to employers covered by the plan, liability assessments to the employers, and a certification to PBGC that assessments have been made. (For a mass withdrawal, there are two assessments and two certifications that deal with two different types of liability. For a withdrawal in which substantially all employers withdraw, there is one assessment and one certification (combined with the withdrawal notice to PBGC).) The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 45 hours and $132,000.
Under section 4220 of ERISA, a plan may within certain limits adopt special plan rules regarding when a withdrawal from the plan occurs and how the withdrawing employer's withdrawal liability is determined. Any such special rule is effective only if, within 90 days after receiving notice and a copy of the rule, PBGC either approves or fails to disapprove the rule.
PBGC's regulation on Procedures for PBGC Approval of Plan Amendments (29 CFR part 4220) provides rules for requesting PBGC's approval of an amendment. PBGC needs the required information to identify the plan, evaluate the risk of loss, if any, posed by the plan amendment, and determine whether to approve or disapprove the amendment.
PBGC estimates that at most one plan sponsor submits an approval request per year under this regulation. The estimated annual burden of the collection of information is 0.5 hours and $5,000 dollars.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BYX Equities”) to: (i) Modify the rates associated with fee codes AA, BJ and RA; and (ii) increase the scope of executions subject to fee code IX. The Exchange notes that Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) implemented certain pricing changes effective June 1, 2017, including modification of various fees and rebates to add and remove liquidity with a displayed or IOC order to a flat fee of $0.0003 per share to add or remove liquidity with a displayed or IOC order.
The Exchange proposes to modify the rate associated with orders yielding fee code AA, which results from an order routed to EDGA using ALLB routing strategy,
The Exchange proposes to modify the rate associated with orders yielding fee code BJ, which result from an order routed to EDGA using the Destination Specific (“DIRC”),
The Exchange proposes to decrease the fee associated with orders yielding fee code RA, which results from an order routed to EDGA which adds liquidity, from a fee of $0.0005 per share to a fee of $0.0003 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange does not propose to modify the rate for orders yielding fee code RA for securities priced below $1.00, which are currently not charged a fee nor provided a rebate.
The Exchange proposes to modify the routing strategies applicable to fee code IX to include the TRIM or TRIM2 routing strategies. Fee code IX is currently appended to all orders that are routed to the Investors Exchange, Inc. (“IEX”) using the Destination Specific routing strategy (also referred to as “DIRC”).
The Exchange proposes to implement the above changes to its fee schedule immediately.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,
As noted above, EDGA implemented certain pricing changes effective June 1, 2017, including modification of various fees and rebates to and remove liquidity with a displayed or IOC order to a flat fee of $0.0003 per share to add or remove liquidity with a displayed or IOC order.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to include TRIM and TRIM2 routing strategies for orders routed to IEX that yield fee code IX is equitable and reasonable because routing through Bats Trading is voluntary and Members may utilize other avenues to route orders to IEX, such as connecting to IEX directly. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed alternative routing strategies are non-discriminatory because the availability applies uniformly to all Members.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of the proposed changes to the Exchange's routing pricing burden competition, as they are based on the pricing on other venues. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange does not believe the proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would be available to all Members uniformly.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 25, 2017, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX Options” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
PRIME is a process by which a Member
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission believes that, given the electronic nature of the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism and the ability of Members to respond within the proposed exposure periods, modifying each of the exposure periods from 500 milliseconds to a time designated by the Exchange of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second could facilitate the prompt execution of orders, while continuing to provide market participants with an opportunity to compete to trade with the exposed order by submitting responses to the auctions. According to the Exchange, numerous Members have the capability to and do respond within a 100 millisecond exposure period or less.
To substantiate that its members can receive, process, and communicate a response back to the Exchange within 100 milliseconds, the Exchange states that it surveyed all Members that responded to an auction broadcast in the period beginning November 2016 and ending January 2017 (the “review period”).
Based on the Exchange's statements, the Commission believes that market participants should continue to have opportunities to compete to trade with the exposed order by submitting responses to the PRIME and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism within an exposure period of no less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 1 second.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”). The requested exemption would permit an investment adviser to hire and replace certain sub-advisers without shareholder approval and grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the sub-advisers.
Westcore Trust (the “Trust”), a Massachusetts business trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series (each, a “Series”), and Denver Investment Advisors LLC, a Colorado limited liability company registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisor,” and, collectively with the Trust, the “Applicants”).
The application was filed on December 15, 2016, and amended on March 13, 2017.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on July 11, 2017 and should be accompanied by proof of service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: c/o Peter H. Schwartz, Esq., Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, 1550 17th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8707, or Aaron Gilbride, Acting Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6906 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. The Advisor will serve as the investment adviser to the Subadvised Series pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with the Trust (each, an “Investment Management Agreement”).
2. Applicants request an exemption to permit the Advisor, subject to Board approval, to hire a Non-Affiliated Sub-Advisor or a Wholly-Owned Sub-Advisor, pursuant to Sub-Advisory Agreements and materially amend Sub-
3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application. Such terms and conditions provide for, among other safeguards, appropriate disclosure to Subadvised Series' shareholders and notification about sub-advisory changes and enhanced Board oversight to protect the interests of the Subadvised Series' shareholders.
4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or any rule thereunder, if such relief is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants believe that the requested relief meets this standard because, as further explained in the application, the Investment Management Agreements will remain subject to shareholder approval, while the role of the Sub-Advisors is substantially equivalent to that of individual portfolio managers, so that requiring shareholder approval of Sub-Advisory Agreements would impose unnecessary delays and expenses on the Subadvised Series. Applicants believe that the requested relief from the Disclosure Requirements meets this standard because it will improve the Advisor's ability to negotiate fees paid to the Sub-Advisors that are more advantageous for the Subadvised Series.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of ARKANSAS (FEMA-4318-DR), dated 06/15/2017.
Effective 06/15/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2017, 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 151756 and for economic injury is 151760.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of ARKANSAS (FEMA-4318-DR), dated 06/15/2017.
Effective 06/15/2017.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/15/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 151776 and for economic injury is 151786.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 06/14/2017.
Effective 06/14/2017.
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 15168 B and for economic injury is 15169 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is North Carolina.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Indiana dated 06/14/2017.
Effective 06/14/2017.
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 15170 B and for economic injury is 15171 0.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration # is INDIANA.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Fiftieth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Fiftieth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary.
The meeting will be held August 03, 2017 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.
Karan Hofmann at
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is hereby given for a meeting of the Fiftieth RTCA SC-224 Standards for Airport Security Access Control Systems Plenary. The agenda will include the following:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc.'s (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi [Confidential] vehicle line in accordance with
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2018 model year.
Hisham Mohamed, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-437, 1200 New Jersey
In a petition dated March 30, 2017, Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Mitsubishi [Confidential] vehicle line, beginning with MY 2018. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Mitsubishi provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the [Confidential] vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment on its [Confidential] vehicle line beginning with MY 2018. Key components of the antitheft device will include a transponder key, electronic control unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi also stated that it will be incorporating an audible and visual alarm system as standard equipment on these trim-line vehicles. Mitsubishi's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
Mitsubishi stated that its entry models for the [Confidential] vehicle line will be equipped with a Wireless Control Module (WCM) immobilizer. Mitsubishi explained that this is a key entry system in which the transponder is located in a traditional key that must be inserted into the key cylinder in order to activate the ignition. All other models of the [Confidential] vehicle line are equipped with a One-touch Starting System (OSS), which utilizes a keyless system that allows the driver to press a button located on the instrument panel to activate and deactivate the ignition (instead of using a traditional key in the key cylinder) as long as the transponder is located in close proximity to the driver.
Once the ignition switch is turned (pushed) to the ignition-on position, the transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message containing the key code to the electronic control unit (ECU). The immobilizer receives the key code signal transmitted from either type of key (WCM or OSS) and verifies that the key code signal is correct. The immobilizer then sends a separate encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU to allow the driver to start the vehicle. The engine only will function if the key code matches the unique identification key code previously programmed into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the engine and fuel system will be disabled.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Mitsubishi provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Mitsubishi conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test. Mitsubishi additionally stated that its immobilizer system is further enhanced by several factors making it very difficult to defeat. Specifically, Mitsubishi stated that communication between the transponder and the ECU are encrypted and its WCM and OSS have over 4.3 billion different possible key codes that make successful key code duplication virtually impossible. Mitsubishi also stated that its immobilizer system and the ECU share security data during vehicle assembly that make them a matched set. These matched modules will not function if taken out and reinstalled separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that it is impossible to mechanically override the system and start the vehicle because the vehicle will not be able to start without the transmission of the specific code to the electronic control module. Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that the antitheft device is extremely reliable and durable because there are no moving parts, nor does the key require a separate battery.
Mitsubishi also informed the agency that its Eclipse vehicle line has been equipped with the antitheft device beginning with its MY 2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device). Mitsubishi also revealed that the Galant, Endeavor, Outlander, Lancer, Outlander Sport, i-MiEV and Mirage vehicle lines have been equipped with a similar type of immobilizer device since January 2004, April 2004, September 2006, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011 and July 2013, respectively. All eight vehicle lines have been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency. The average theft rates for the Mitsubishi Galant, Endeavor, Outlander and Lancer vehicle lines using an average of 3 MY's data are 3.6664, 1.7721, 0.7253 and 0.9747 respectively. Therefore, Mitsubishi has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mitsubishi on the device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the [Confidential] vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Mitsubishi [Confidential] vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Mitsubishi provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mitsubishi's petition for exemption for the [Confidential] vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 2018 model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
If Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s, (Nissan) petition for exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in accordance with the
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2018 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43-439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
In a petition dated March 31, 2017, Nissan requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the (confidential) vehicle line beginning with MY 2018. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the (confidential) vehicle line. Nissan stated that the MY 2018 (confidential) vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment. Key components of the antitheft device will include an engine immobilizer, engine control module (ECM), security indicator light, immobilizer antenna, Key FOB, and a specially-designed key with a microchip. Nissan will not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry on the (confidential) vehicle line.
Nissan's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. Nissan stated that its antitheft device is tested for specific parameters to ensure its reliability and durability. Nissan provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified requirements for each test. Nissan further stated that its immobilizer device satisfies the European Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. Nissan also stated that all control units for the device are located inside the vehicle, providing further protection from unauthorized accessibility of the device from outside the vehicle.
Nissan stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs automatically when the ignition switch is turned to the “OFF” position which then causes the security indicator light to flash notifying the operator that the immobilizer device is activated. Nissan stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation of the vehicle without using a specially-designed microchip key with a pre-registered “Key-ID”. Nissan also stated that, when the brake and clutch is on and the key FOB is near the engine start switch, the Key-ID is scanned via the immobilizer antenna. The microchip in the key transmits the Key-ID to the BCM, beginning an encrypted communication process. If the Key-ID and encrypted code are correct, the ECM will allow the engine to keep running and the driver to operate the vehicle. If the Key-ID and encrypted code are not correct, the ECM will cause the engine to shut down.
Nissan stated that the proposed device is functionally equivalent to the antitheft device installed on the MY
Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device installed on its (confidential) vehicle line in support of the belief that its antitheft device will be highly effective in reducing and deterring theft. Nissan referenced the National Insurance Crime Bureau's data which it stated showed a 70% reduction in theft when comparing MY 1997 Ford Mustangs (with a standard immobilizer) to MY 1995 Ford Mustangs (without an immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the Highway Loss Data Institute's data which reported that BMW vehicles experienced theft loss reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim frequency and a 78% lower average loss payment per claim for vehicles equipped with an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan stated that theft rates for its Pathfinder vehicle experienced reductions from model year (MY) 2000 to 2001 with implementation of the engine immobilizer device as standard equipment and further significant reductions subsequent to MY 2001. Specifically, Nissan noted that the agency's theft rate data for MY's 2001 through 2006 reported theft rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474 respectively for the Nissan Pathfinder.
Nissan compared its device to other similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency. Specifically, it referenced the agency's grant of full exemptions to General Motors Corporation for its Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines (58 FR 44872, August 25, 1993) and its Cadillac Seville vehicle line (62 FR 20058, April 24, 1997) from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. Nissan stated that it believes that since its device is functionally equivalent to other comparable manufacturer's devices that have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency, along with the evidence of reduced theft rates for vehicle lines equipped with similar devices and advanced technology of transponder electronic security, the Nissan immobilizer device will have the potential to achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to those vehicles already exempted by the agency. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential) vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the (confidential) vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Nissan's petition for exemption for the Nissan (confidential) vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. As a condition to the formal granting of Nissan's petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 (confidential) vehicle line, the agency fully expects Nissan to notify the agency of the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the United States commerce for sale.
If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Nissan wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC's (BMW) petition for exemption of the X2 vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 543,
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2018 model year (MY).
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43-439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
In a petition dated March 13, 2017, BMW requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard for the X2 vehicle line beginning with MY 2018. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543,
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, BMW provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for its X2 vehicle line. Key features of the antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer, a remote control w/mechanical key, ring antenna (transponder coil), low frequency antenna (LF) engine control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded start release input, and an electronically coded vehicle immobilizer/car access system (EWS/CAS) control unit. BMW stated that its X2 vehicle line will be installed with a passive vehicle immobilizer device as standard equipment and that it will prevent the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power. BMW also stated that it will not offer an audible or visible alarm feature on the proposed device.
BMW's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Part 543.6, BMW provided information on the reliability and durability of its device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, BMW stated that it conducted tests on the antitheft device which complied with its own specific standards and the device is installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has granted a parts-marking exemption. BMW stated that its immobilizer device fulfills the requirements of European vehicle insurance companies. BMW further address the reliability and durability of its device by providing information on the uniqueness of its mechanical keys for the X2 vehicle line. Specifically, BMW stated that the vehicle's mechanical keys are unique because they require a special key blank, cutting machine and a unique vehicle code to allow for key duplication. BMW further stated that the new keys will only be issued to authorized persons and will incorporate special guide-way millings, making the locks almost impossible to pick and the keys impossible to duplicate on the open market.
BMW stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs automatically when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is removed from the ignition lock cylinder. Specifically, BMW stated that its transponder sends key data to the EWS/CAS control unit. The correct key data must be recognized by the EWS/CAS control unit in order for deactivation to occur and for the vehicle to start. The transponder contains a chip which is integrated in the key and powered by a battery. The transponder also consists of a transmitter/receiver which communicates with the EWS/CAS control unit. The EWS/CAS control unit provides the interface to the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. The ignition and fuel supply are only released when a correct coded release signal has been sent by the EWS/CAS control unit to deactivate the device and allow the vehicle to start. When the EWS/CAS control unit has sent a correct release signal, and after the initial starting value, the release signal becomes a rolling, ever-changing, random code that is stored in the DME/DDE and EWS/CAS control units. The DME/DDE must identify the correct release signal to release the ignition signal and fuel supply.
BMW stated that the vehicle is also equipped with a central-locking system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock only the driver's door, thereby preventing forced entry into the vehicle through the passenger doors. The vehicle can be further secured by locking the doors and hood using either the key lock cylinder on the driver's door or the remote frequency remote control. BMW stated that the frequency for the remote control constantly changes to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by intercepting the signals of its remote control.
BMW further stated that all of its vehicles are currently equipped with antitheft devices as standard equipment, including its X2 vehicle line. BMW compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. Specifically, BMW has installed its antitheft device on its X1 (MPV and passenger cars), X3, X4 and X5 vehicle lines, as well as its Carline 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Z4, MINI and MINI Countryman vehicle lines, all which have been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency. BMW asserts that theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which it proposes to install on the X2 vehicle line. BMW also stated that for MY/CY 2013, the agency's data show that the theft rates for its lines are: 0.34 (1-series), 0.69 (3-series), 1.26 (5-series), 2.47 (6-series) 1.66 (7-series), 0.24 (X1), 0.68 (X3), 2.02 (Z4), and 0.32 (MINI Cooper). Using an average of 3 MYs data (2011-2013), NHTSA's theft rates for BMW's 1 series, 3 series, 5 series, 6 series, 7 series, X1, X3, Z4 and MINI Cooper vehicle lines are 0.4954, 0.6581, 0.9935, 2.8054, 1.4711, 0.2356, 0.4961, 1.2843 and 0.3385 respectively, all below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by BMW, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the BMW X2 vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon supporting evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the X2 vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information BMW provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full BMW's petition for exemption for the MY 2018 X2 vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given MY. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If BMW decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions “to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.”
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1-Motor vehicle, 2-Rail freight, 3-Cargo vessel, 4-Cargo aircraft only, 5-Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2017.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA 95), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information. This helps IRS assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the reporting burden on the public and helps the public understand IRS's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning the reporting burden associated with making the Election Out of GST Deemed Allocations.
Written comments should be received on or before August 21, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Tuawana Pinkston, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6141, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Requests for additional information or copies of the regulations should be directed to R. Joseph Durbala, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6129, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice; request for public comment.
As part of its statutory authority and responsibility to analyze sentencing issues, including operation of the federal sentencing guidelines, and in accordance with Rule 5.2 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, the United States Sentencing Commission is seeking comment on possible policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018.
Public comment should be received by the Commission on or before July 31, 2017.
Comments should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal sentencing courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
The Commission provides this notice to identify tentative priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018. The Commission recognizes, however, that other factors, such as the enactment of legislation requiring Commission action, may affect the Commission's ability to complete work on any or all of its identified priorities by the statutory deadline of May 1, 2018. Accordingly, it may be necessary to continue work on any or all of these issues beyond the amendment cycle ending on May 1, 2018.
As so prefaced, the Commission has identified the following tentative priorities:
(1) Continuation of its multi-year examination of the overall structure of the guidelines post-
(2) Continuation of its multi-year study of offenses involving MDMA/Ecstasy, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), and synthetic cathinones (such as Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), and consideration of any amendments to the
(3) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's 2016 report to Congress, titled
(4) Continuation of its work with Congress and other interested parties on statutory mandatory minimum penalties to implement the recommendations set forth in the Commission's 2011 report to Congress, titled
(5) Continuation of its comprehensive, multi-year study of recidivism, including (A) examination of circumstances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism; (B) possible development of recommendations for using information obtained from such study to reduce costs of incarceration and overcapacity of prisons, and promote effectiveness of reentry programs; and (C) consideration of any amendments to the
(6) Implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Public Law 114-74, and any other crime legislation enacted during the 114th or 115th Congress warranting a Commission response.
(7) Continuation of its study of the findings and recommendations contained in the May 2016 Report issued by the Commission's Tribal Issues Advisory Group and consideration of any amendments to the
(8) Examination of Chapter Four, Part A (Criminal History) to study (A) how the guidelines account for prior federal and state convictions resulting from the same criminal conduct under Section 4A1.2(a)(2); (B) the treatment of convictions for offenses committed prior to age eighteen; (C) the treatment of revocation sentences under Section 4A1.2(k); and (D) a possible amendment of Section 4A1.3 to account for instances in which the time actually served was substantially less than the length of the sentence imposed for a conviction counted in the criminal history score.
(9) Continuation of its study of alternatives to incarceration, including (A) issuing a publication regarding the development of alternative to incarceration programs in federal district courts, and (B) possibly amending the Sentencing Table in Chapter 5, Part A to consolidate Zones B and C, and other relevant provisions in the
(10) Resolution of circuit conflicts, pursuant to the Commission's continuing authority and responsibility, under 28 U.S.C. 991(b)(1)(B) and
(11) Consideration of any miscellaneous guideline application issues coming to the Commission's attention from case law and other sources, including consideration of whether a defendant's denial of relevant conduct should be considered in determining whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for purposes of Section 3E1.1.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it is seeking comment on these tentative priorities and on any other issues that interested persons believe the Commission should address during the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2018. To the extent practicable, public comment should include the following: (1) A statement of the issue, including, where appropriate, the scope and manner of study, particular problem areas and possible solutions, and any other matters relevant to a proposed priority; (2) citations to applicable sentencing guidelines, statutes, case law, and constitutional provisions; and (3) a direct and concise statement of why the Commission should make the issue a priority.
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.2.
United States Sentencing Commission.
Request for public comment.
In August 2016, the Commission indicated that one of its policy priorities would be the “[s]tudy of offenses involving MDMA/Ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), and synthetic cathinones (such as Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), and consideration of any amendments to the
Public comment regarding the issues for comment set forth in this notice should be received by the Commission not later than August 7, 2017.
All written comment should be sent to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address for public comment is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500,
The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of the United States Government. The Commission promulgates sentencing guidelines and policy statements for federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). The Commission also periodically reviews and revises previously promulgated guidelines pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o) and submits guideline amendments to the Congress not later than the first day of May each year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(p).
In August 2016, the Commission indicated that one of its priorities would be the “[s]tudy of offenses involving MDMA/Ecstasy, synthetic cannabinoids (such as JWH-018 and AM-2201), and synthetic cathinones (such as Methylone, MDPV, and Mephedrone), and consideration of any amendments to the
On December 19, 2016, the Commission published a request for comment inviting general comment on synthetic cathinones (MDPV, methylone, and mephedrone) and synthetic cannabinoids (JWH-018 and AM-2201), as well as about the application of the factors the Commission traditionally considers when determining the marihuana equivalencies for specific controlled substances to the substances under study.
As part of its continuing work on this priority, the Commission is publishing this second request for comment specifically focused on issues related to MDMA/Ecstasy and methylone, one of the synthetic cathinones included in the Commission's study. In addition to the substance-specific topics discussed below, the Commission anticipates that its work will continue to be guided by the factors the Commission traditionally considers when determining marihuana equivalencies for specific controlled substances, including their chemical structure, pharmacological effects, legislative and scheduling history, potential for addiction and abuse, the pattern of abuse and harms associated with their abuse, and the patterns of trafficking and harms associated with their trafficking.
MDMA is not specifically listed in the Drug Quantity Table at § 2D1.1 (Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy), but it is referenced in the Drug Equivalency Tables.
The Commission implemented the directive by adopting an amendment setting the marihuana equivalency for MDMA as 1 gm of MDMA = 500 gm of marihuana.
The marihuana equivalency of MDMA remains 1 gm of MDMA = 500 gm of marihuana. Some public comment and judicial opinions have suggested that the current marihuana equivalency for MDMA may no longer be appropriate in light of scientific and practical developments that have occurred since 2001. Other stakeholders have suggested that the current ratio remains appropriate in light of the concerns expressed by Congress in 2000.
Unlike MDMA, methylone is not specifically listed in either the Drug Quantity Table or the Drug Equivalency Tables at Section 2D1.1. As with any drug trafficking offense that involves a controlled substance not specifically referenced in the guidelines, courts are required in cases involving methylone to “determine the base offense level using the marihuana equivalency of the most closely related controlled substance referenced in [Section 2D1.1].”
A preliminary review of Commission data regarding cases involving synthetic cathinones indicates that, in determining the most closely related controlled substance, courts recognize distinctions among types of synthetic cathinones. For example, in cases involving methylone, Commission data indicates that courts have almost always identified MDMA as the most closely related controlled substance to methylone, and have used either MDMA's marihuana equivalency of 500:1 or a reduced equivalency.
1. The Commission invites general comment on whether, and if so how, the guidelines for MDMA/Ecstasy trafficking should be changed. As stated above, the marihuana equivalency of MDMA is 1 gm of MDMA = 500 gm of marihuana. Is the marihuana equivalency for MDMA appropriate? Should the Commission establish a different equivalency for MDMA? If so, what equivalency should the Commission provide and on what basis?
The Commission further seeks comment on any relevant developments in the scientific literature on the health effects of MDMA use since the Commission published its MDMA Report and last amended the marihuana equivalency for MDMA in 2001. The Commission also seeks comment about whether there have been changes in MDMA distribution and usage patterns, such as marketing to or prevalence of use among youth, since 2001. For example, how is MDMA typically manufactured, distributed, and marketed today? How does MDMA compare to other controlled substances referenced in Section 2D1.1 in terms of health effects (including addictiveness and abuse potential), marketing and trafficking patterns, and potency by dosage unit? How should the Commission assess the harms of MDMA relative to those of other controlled substances?
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether since 2001 there have been any developments to suggest that the Commission, in addition to or instead of establishing a different equivalency for MDMA, should revise the “typical weight per unit” measure set forth in Application Note 9 to Section 2D1.1, which is currently set at 250 mg for MDMA. If so, what are those developments? How should the Commission revise the “typical weight per unit” measure set forth for MDMA?
2. As noted above, courts have typically identified MDMA as the most closely related controlled substance to methylone. Under the current guidelines, including Application Note 6 to Section 2D1.1, is this determination appropriate? If not, is there any controlled substance referenced in Section 2D1.1 that is most closely related to methylone? If so, what substance?
The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should provide a marihuana equivalency for methylone. If so, and MDMA is determined to be the most closely related controlled substance to
If the Commission were to establish a marihuana equivalency for methylone, which is often marketed and consumed in capsule form, should the Commission establish a “typical weight per unit” for methylone in Application Note 9 to Section 2D1.1?
3. The Commission seeks general comment on whether there are synthetic cathinones, other than methylone, that are substantially similar in their effects to MDMA. If so, what are those substances? How do those substances compare to MDMA in terms of health effects (including addictiveness and abuse potential), marketing and trafficking patterns, and potency by dosage unit? If the Commission were to include any such other synthetic cathinones in the Drug Equivalency Tables at Application Note 8(D) to Section 2D1.1, how should the Commission establish marihuana equivalencies for these other synthetic cathinones in relation to one another and to the other controlled substances referenced in Section 2D1.1?
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), (x); USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 4.4.
United States Sentencing Commission.
Notice.
In view of upcoming vacancies in the voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group, the United States Sentencing Commission hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to one of the vacancies to apply. The voting memberships covered by this notice are two circuit memberships (for the Sixth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit) and one at-large membership. An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission as indicated in the
Application materials for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should be received not later than August 25, 2017.
An applicant for voting membership of the Practitioners Advisory Group should apply by sending a letter of interest and resume to the Commission by electronic mail or regular mail. The email address is
Christine Leonard, Director, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, (202) 502-4500,
The Practitioners Advisory Group is a standing advisory group of the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 995 and Rule 5.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under the charter for the advisory group, the purpose of the advisory group is (1) to assist the Commission in carrying out its statutory responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 994(o); (2) to provide to the Commission its views on the Commission's activities and work, including proposed priorities and amendments; (3) to disseminate to defense attorneys, and to other professionals in the defense community, information regarding federal sentencing issues; and (4) to perform other related functions as the Commission requests. The advisory group consists of not more than 17 voting members, each of whom may serve not more than two consecutive three-year terms. Of those 17 voting members, one shall be Chair, one shall be Vice Chair, 12 shall be circuit members (one for each federal judicial circuit other than the Federal Circuit), and three shall be at-large members.
To be eligible to serve as a voting member, an individual must be an attorney who (1) devotes a substantial portion of his or her professional work to advocating the interests of privately-represented individuals, or of individuals represented by private practitioners through appointment under the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, within the federal criminal justice system; (2) has significant experience with federal sentencing or post-conviction issues related to criminal sentences; and (3) is in good standing of the highest court of the jurisdiction or jurisdictions in which he or she is admitted to practice. Additionally, to be eligible to serve as a circuit member, the individual's primary place of business or a substantial portion of his or her practice must be in the circuit concerned. Each voting member is appointed by the Commission.
The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to a voting membership covered by this notice (
28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), (p), 28 U.S.C. 995; USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure 5.4.
| 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 |