| Page Range | 32447-32612 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 32549 - Information Collection; Request for Authorization of Additional Classification and Rate, Standard Form 1444 | |
| 82 FR 32463 - Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016; Implementation of Various Section 8 Voucher Provisions | |
| 82 FR 32611 - Allowing Additional Time for Recognizing Positive Actions by the Government of Sudan and Amending Executive Order 13761 | |
| 82 FR 32586 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32549 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32587 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 32453 - Schedules of Controlled Substances: Temporary Placement of Acryl Fentanyl Into Schedule I | |
| 82 FR 32457 - Designation of Alpha-Phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN), a Precursor Chemical Used in the Illicit Manufacture of Phenylacetone, Methamphetamine, and Amphetamine, as a List I Chemical | |
| 82 FR 32583 - Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249 | |
| 82 FR 32567 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for Review; Information Collection Request for the Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology, Research and Development Partnerships Group, Office of Public-Private Partnerships | |
| 82 FR 32577 - Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249 MMAA104000 | |
| 82 FR 32576 - Use of Outer Continental Shelf Sand Resources in the Martin County Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project, Hutchinson Island, Martin County, Florida | |
| 82 FR 32546 - Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (“e-Manifest”) Advisory Board; Notice of Public Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32535 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Billfish Tagging Report Card | |
| 82 FR 32472 - Safety Zone; BASS Master Fireworks Display; Saint Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY | |
| 82 FR 32536 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32542 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Action on Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Waupaca Foundry Plants 2/3 | |
| 82 FR 32564 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records | |
| 82 FR 32547 - Notice of Issuance and Notice of Rescission of Outer Continental Shelf Air Permits | |
| 82 FR 32537 - Reopening; Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2017; Small, Rural School Achievement Program | |
| 82 FR 32587 - Rescheduling Notification of the Public Teleconference of the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (Commission) | |
| 82 FR 32585 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 32542 - Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's Transuranic Waste Characterization Program at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Elimination of Distinction Between Retrievably-Stored and Newly-Generated Transuranic Waste Destined for Disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant | |
| 82 FR 32575 - Filing of Plats of Survey, Oregon/Washington | |
| 82 FR 32519 - Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste | |
| 82 FR 32599 - Fiscal Year 2018 Tariff-Rate Quota Allocations for Raw Cane Sugar, Refined and Specialty Sugar and Sugar-Containing Products | |
| 82 FR 32541 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability | |
| 82 FR 32602 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple IRS Information Collection Requests | |
| 82 FR 32452 - Extension of Import Restrictions Imposed on Archaeological Objects and Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials From Cyprus | |
| 82 FR 32534 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits | |
| 82 FR 32539 - Consumers Energy Company; DTE Electric Company; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments | |
| 82 FR 32541 - Notice of Commission Staff Attendance | |
| 82 FR 32540 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC: Notice of Request under Blanket Authorization | |
| 82 FR 32538 - National Assessment Governing Board Quarterly Board Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32529 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Blood and Tissue Collection and Recordkeeping at Slaughtering, Rendering, and Approved Livestock Marketing Establishments and Facilities | |
| 82 FR 32447 - Filing of Complaints of Prohibited Personnel Practices or Other Prohibited Activities and Filing Disclosures of Information | |
| 82 FR 32600 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received | |
| 82 FR 32528 - Notice of Request for Approval of an Information Collection; Changes to the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards | |
| 82 FR 32571 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Self-Sufficiency Program Demonstration | |
| 82 FR 32572 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Quality Control Requirements for Direct Endorsement Lenders | |
| 82 FR 32601 - Petition for Waiver of Compliance | |
| 82 FR 32570 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Loan Sales Bidder Qualification Statement | |
| 82 FR 32570 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Contractor's/Mortgagor's Cost Breakdowns and Certifications | |
| 82 FR 32568 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Housing Counseling Program-Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency | |
| 82 FR 32569 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Prepayment of Section 202 or 202/8 Direct Loan Project | |
| 82 FR 32531 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey: Amended Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order | |
| 82 FR 32532 - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From the Republic of Turkey and Japan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Duty Determination for the Republic of Turkey and Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 82 FR 32530 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; LT Autos, LLC; Amendment of Application | |
| 82 FR 32530 - Foreign-Trade Zone 168-Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas Area; Application for Subzone; R.W. Smith & Co/TriMark USA, LLC; Lewisville, Texas | |
| 82 FR 32464 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Inside Thorofare, Atlantic City, NJ | |
| 82 FR 32600 - Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary | |
| 82 FR 32536 - Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 32589 - New Postal Products | |
| 82 FR 32489 - Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board; Correction | |
| 82 FR 32573 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of a 5-Year Status Review of the Aleutian Shield Fern | |
| 82 FR 32549 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 32551 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 82 FR 32554 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review | |
| 82 FR 32561 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Entry and Manifest of Merchandise Free of Duty, Carrier's Certificate and Release | |
| 82 FR 32560 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cost Submission | |
| 82 FR 32562 - Agency Information Collection Activities: CBP Regulations Pertaining to Customs Brokers | |
| 82 FR 32559 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Documents Required Aboard Private Aircraft | |
| 82 FR 32563 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Foreign Trade Zone Annual Reconciliation Certification and Record Keeping Requirement | |
| 82 FR 32561 - Agency Information Collection Activities: e-Allegations Submission | |
| 82 FR 32606 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 32558 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 32556 - Product-Specific Guidances; Draft and Revised Draft Guidances for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 32606 - VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee; Notice of Establishment | |
| 82 FR 32490 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Commercial Aggregated Large Coastal Shark and Hammerhead Shark Management Group Retention Limit Adjustment | |
| 82 FR 32596 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change for a New NYSE Arca Rule 11.6900 and a New NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.6900 To Establish the Procedures for Resolving Potential Disputes Related to CAT Fees Charged to Industry Members | |
| 82 FR 32592 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6900 To Establish the Procedures for Resolving Potential Disputes Related to CAT Fees Charged to Industry Members | |
| 82 FR 32598 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 6900 To Establish the Procedures for Resolving Potential Disputes Related to CAT Fees Charged to Industry Members | |
| 82 FR 32510 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 32514 - National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 32511 - Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 32513 - Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 32515 - Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee-Input To Support Regulatory Reform of Coast Guard Regulations-New Task | |
| 82 FR 32589 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement | |
| 82 FR 32474 - Inspection Service Authority; Technical Correction | |
| 82 FR 32469 - Safety Zone; Milwaukee Air and Water Show, Milwaukee Harbor; Milwaukee, Wisconsin | |
| 82 FR 32584 - Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest | |
| 82 FR 32548 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Information Collection Request | |
| 82 FR 32574 - Filing of Plats of Survey: California | |
| 82 FR 32575 - Filing of Plats of Survey; South Dakota | |
| 82 FR 32594 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Specify an Exception to the Manner in Which Market Maker Immediate-or-Cancel Orders Will Be Handled | |
| 82 FR 32592 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Priority Customer Taker Fees for Regular Orders in Select Symbols | |
| 82 FR 32589 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Specify an Exception to the Manner in Which Market Maker Immediate-or-Cancel Orders Will Be Handled | |
| 82 FR 32597 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Fees and Rebates for Trades in KANG Executed on June 27-30, 2017 | |
| 82 FR 32557 - National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32557 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 32558 - Office of the Director Notice of Charter Renewal | |
| 82 FR 32588 - Final Guidance Documents for Subsequent License Renewal | |
| 82 FR 32467 - Safety Zone; Oswego Harborfest Water Ski Show; Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY | |
| 82 FR 32465 - Safety Zone; St. Ignace Fireworks Displays, St. Ignace, MI | |
| 82 FR 32488 - Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B and C, Change-2 | |
| 82 FR 32480 - Air Plan Approval; Maine; Decommissioning of Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems | |
| 82 FR 32517 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Utah; Revisions to Ozone Offset Requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties | |
| 82 FR 32474 - Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico; Attainment Demonstration for the Arecibo Area for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards | |
| 82 FR 32450 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Texas Towns; Sherman, TX; and Temple, TX, and Establishment of Class E Airspace, Temple, TX | |
| 82 FR 32598 - WRL, LLC-Change in Operator Exemption-Western Washington Railroad, LLC | |
| 82 FR 32461 - Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016: Implementation of Various Section 8 Voucher Provisions; Correction | |
| 82 FR 32602 - Departmental Offices; Debt Management Advisory Committee Meeting | |
| 82 FR 32493 - Reducing Regulation and Public Burden, and Controlling Cost | |
| 82 FR 32498 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 32496 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 32503 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 32507 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 32494 - Airworthiness Directives; GEVEN S.p.A., Seat Assemblies, Type D1-02 and D1-03 | |
| 82 FR 32447 - Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 32463 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits | |
| 82 FR 32553 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, Public Scoping Meeting, and Request for Comments; Acquisition of Site for Development as a New Consolidated Campus for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH) in Cincinnati, Ohio | |
| 82 FR 32501 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters (Previously Eurocopter France) | |
| 82 FR 32482 - Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances |
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
This document delays the effective date of the final rule and information collection activity published in the June 9, 2017 issue of the
As of July 14, 2017, the effective date of the final rule published at 82 FR 26739 on June 9, 2017, is delayed indefinitely.
Susan K. Ullman, General Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, by telephone at 202-254-3600, by facsimile at (202) 254-3711, or by email at
On June 9, 2017 (82 FR 26739), OSC published a final rule revising its regulations regarding the filing of complaints and disclosures with OSC and updating OSC's prohibited personnel practice provisions. This document indefinitely delays the effective date of that final rule.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report of dual-engine loss of thrust control (LOTC) that resulted in an air turn back. This AD requires initial and repetitive checks of the variable stator vane (VSV) actuation system in the high-pressure compressor (HPC). We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective August 18, 2017.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain CFM CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
CFM, Boeing, Anonymous, and Jet2.com requested that the Applicability paragraph be limited to engines operating in the tropical regions specified in CFM Service Bulletin (SB) CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, rather than fleet-wide. A change of applicability to specific regions would avoid unnecessary burden for operators that do not fly in tropical zones and do not fly less than 150 hours per month.
We disagree. Operators may experience high moisture environments outside of the specified tropical zone that is described in CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169. Operators that are outside of the specified tropical zone have experienced restricted VSV movement events. We did not change this AD.
Milan Pavlovic requested that we include the CFM CFM56-3 Engine Shop Manual (ESM) 72-32-00 procedure for VSV pull force checks, as an acceptable method of compliance, in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD. The change is requested to allow the pull force check at the modular level, using the ESM procedure.
We partially agree. We agree that performing the pull force check of the VSV system per the ESM is acceptable. We disagree with including a statement in paragraph (f)(2) because paragraph (f)(2) does not refer to any service information.
Milan Pavlovic requested that we allow the replacement of an affected stator case with an HPC stator case (that passes the pull force check) in lieu of a repaired case. The proposed Compliance paragraph (f)(2)(i) states: “If any stage requires more than 100 lbs. force to move the actuation ring, ream the VSV bores and apply anti-corrosion coating to stage 1, 2 and 3, prior to further flight.” This statement is interpreted as incorporation of CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031 is the mandated action and therefore the only acceptable action to satisfy the AD compliance requirements. Would replacement of the stator case assembly with a serviceable stator case assembly, that has not had CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031 performed, be considered an acceptable alternate action providing the pull force check is performed on the replacement stator case assembly and is found to be less than 75 lbs. in each stage?
The commenter feels that replacement with a stator case that passes the pull force check is an additional action that would satisfy the AD requirements. The replacement case would be subject to the repetitive checks specified in paragraph (f)(3).
We partially agree. We disagree that using any specific service information to comply this AD is mandated. We agree that the installation of a replacement HPC stator case that passes the VSV pull force check with measurements of 75 lbs. or less is acceptable. We changed paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD accordingly.
CFM requested that we cite the latest revision date of CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, in the Service Information section.
We agree. The NPRM included an earlier revision date. This AD now references CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016.
CFM requested that we refer to the latest revision of CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031, in the Service Information section. The latest CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031, revision is dated December 15, 2016.
We agree. The NPRM referenced an out of date ESM repair. This AD now references CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031, dated December 15, 2016.
CFM and Milan Pavlovic noted that early configurations of the CFM56-3 engines were released with titanium HPC stator cases, which are not susceptible to corrosion in VSV bores. An additional commenter asks if the AD should affect steel stator cases only. CFM recommends applicability be noted as CFM56-3 engines with steel HPC cases with P/Ns 1499M30G01, 1499M30G02, 1499M30G03, or 1676M88G01. CFM's experience indicates that the titanium HPC cases do not experience VSV bore corrosion, and therefore do not experience restricted VSV movement due to bore corrosion.
We agree. Titanium HPC cases do not experience restricted VSV movement due to VSV bore corrosion. We changed this AD to specify that it is applicable to CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan engines with steel HPC stator cases,P/Ns 1499M30G01, 1499M30G02, 1499M30G03, or 1676M88G01, installed.
CFM proposes that we change the language in the Discussion section to state that the VSV resistance due to the corrosion may lead to an inability of the actuator to fully reach commanded position. The description should more accurately describe the problem. VSV actuators do not fail due to corrosion, but do exhibit limited range of movement.
We agree. The statement of “failure of VSV actuators” is an incomplete description of the problem. We revised the Discussion section and paragraph (e) of this AD to clarify.
CFM requested that we change the Related Service Information section, which highlights that CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016, describes a procedure to examine the VSV bore on the inside of the HPC case. While this is correct, CFM proposes that this section highlight that CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169 describes a procedure to check the resistance of the VSV system as this portion of the SB is most relevant.
We agree. This AD requires a pull force check of VSV actuators. We changed the Related Service Information section to state that CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016 describes a procedure to check the resistance of the VSV system.
Boeing recommends allowing a ferry flight instead of requiring repair prior to further flight, if a pull force check exceeds 100 lb on one engine. They stated that a ferry flight should be allowed if take-off rated thrust can be achieved during a ground run, and the sister engine is within SB VSV pull force limits.
We partially agree. We agree with allowing special flight permits because a dual engine LOTC due to VSV restricted movement is unlikely to occur if the sister engine is within the pull force limit. We disagree with changing this AD, because as written, this AD does not limit or prohibit special flight permits. Special flight permits are allowed under 14 CFR 39.23. We did not change this AD.
A commenter asked why the Bahrain region is not listed as an affected zone for applicability of CFM SB CFM56-3S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016. The commenter stated that regions other than tropical climate zones listed in the SB may also expose an engine to humid environments.
We agree. We recognize that operation in more than one climate zone may contribute to VSV bore corrosion. However, this AD is applicable to all CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan engines with a steel HPC stator case, part numbers (P/Ns) 1499M30G01, 1499M30G02, 1499M30G03, or 1676M88G01, installed, regardless of their operating environment. We did not change this AD.
The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as written.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Αre consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.
We reviewed CFM SB CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016. This SB describes a procedure to check the resistance of the VSV system. We also reviewed CFM CFM56-3 ESM 72-32-01, Repair 031, dated December 15, 2016. This ESM repair describes procedures for reaming and applying anti-corrosion paint to the VSV bores.
We estimate that this AD affects 460 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective August 18, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-3, -3B, and -3C turbofan engines with steel high-pressure compressor (HPC) stator case, part numbers (P/Ns)1499M30G01, 1499M30G02, 1499M30G03, or 1676M88G01, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of dual engine loss of thrust control (LOTC) that resulted in an air turn back. We are issuing this AD to maintain the actuators ability to fully reach commanded position, and prevent LOTC and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done. Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD:
(1) Inspect the affected engines to determine if the compressor front stator case is marked with “RP031” adjacent to the part number. If the case is marked with “RP031,” no further action is required. If the case is not marked with “RP031,” follow the remaining steps in paragraph (f) of this AD.
(2) Perform an initial pull force check of stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 of the compressor variable stator vane (VSV) actuation system.
(i) If any stage requires more than 100 lb force to move the actuation ring, ream the VSV bores and apply anti-corrosion coating to stages 1, 2, and 3, prior to further flight, or replace with an HPC stator case that is eligible for installation and passes the VSV pull force check with measurements of 75 lb or less.
(ii) If any stage requires more than 75 lb, but less than or equal to 100 lb force to move the actuation ring, repeat the inspection within 3 months since last inspection.
(iii) If all stages require 75 lb force or less to move the actuation rings, repeat the inspection within 12 months since last inspection.
(3) Thereafter, continue to perform repetitive pull force checks of stages 1, 2, and 3 of the compressor VSV actuation system and disposition as specified in paragraphs (2)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
Reaming the VSV bores and applying anti-corrosion coating, as specified in paragraph
The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
(1) For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7129; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) CFM Service Bulletin CFM56-3 S/B 72-1169, Revision 01, dated November 4, 2016; and CFM CFM56-3 Engine Shop Manual 72-32-01, Repair 031, dated December 15, 2016, can be obtained from CFM using the contact information in paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-3272; fax: 877-432-3329; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action: Amends Class D airspace at North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field, Sherman, TX; amends Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, Temple, TX; amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field, and Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport; and establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. Cancellation of standard instrument approach procedures at these airports has made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, geographic coordinates, names of airports, and a navigation aid are being adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 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.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends Class D airspace at North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field, Sherman, TX; Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, Temple, TX; Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field and Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport; and establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, in support IFR operations at these airports.
On April 20, 2017, the FAA published in the
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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
This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies:
Class D airspace within a 4.7-mile radius (reduced from a 5.0-mile radius) at North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field (formerly Grayson County Airport), Sherman/Denison, TX, and updates the name of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Class E airspace designated as a surface area within a 4.2-mile radius (increased from a 4.1-mile radius) at Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (formerly Draughon-Miller Municipal Airport), Temple, TX, eliminating the extension southeast of the airport, and updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:
Within a 7.2-mile radius (increased from a 6.9-mile radius) of North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field (formerly Grayson County Airport), Sherman/Denison, TX, and updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
Within a 6.7-mile radius of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport (formerly Draughon-Miller Municipal Airport), Temple, TX, eliminates the extensions north and southeast of the airport, amends the extension northwest of the airport from the 6.7-mile radius to 14.4 miles (reduced from 19.5 miles), adds an extension south of the airport from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.1 miles, adds an extension southwest of the airport from the 6.7-mile radius to 9.7 miles, and updates the name and geographic coordinates of the airport and the name of the Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Localizer (formerly Draughon-Miller Localizer) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
And establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class E surface airspace within a 4.2-mile radius of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, Temple, TX, with an extension southeast 7.7 miles.
Cancellation of standard instrument approach procedures at these airports prompted the FAA to conduct a review of the airspace. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these airports.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
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.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 4.7-mile radius of North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
Within a 4.2-mile radius of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
The airspace extending upward from the surface 1.4 miles either side of the 157° radial of the Temple VOR extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 7.7 miles southeast of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius of North Texas Regional Airport/Perrin Field, and within a 6.4-mile radius of Sherman Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 157° radial of the Temple VOR extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10.1 miles south of the airport, and within 2 miles either side of the 201° bearing from the airport from the 6.7-mile radius to 9.7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the 336° bearing of the Draughon-Miller Central Texas Regional Localizer extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 14.4 miles northwest of the airport.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension of import restrictions on Pre-Classical and Classical archaeological objects, and Byzantine and post-Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials from Cyprus. The restrictions, which were originally imposed by Treasury Decision 02-37, and last extended by CBP Dec. 12-13, are due to expire on July 16, 2017. The Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State, has determined that conditions continue to warrant the imposition of import restrictions. Accordingly, these import restrictions will remain in effect for an additional five years, and the CBP regulations are being amended to reflect this extension through July 16, 2022. These restrictions are being extended pursuant to determinations of the United States Department of State made under the terms of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act in accordance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. CBP Dec. 12-13 contains the Amended Designated List of all archaeological objects and Byzantine and Post-Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials from Cyprus, to which the restrictions apply.
Effective July 16, 2017.
For regulatory aspects, Lisa L. Burley, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0215. For operational aspects, William R. Scopa, Branch Chief, Partner Government Agency Branch, Trade Policy and Programs, Office of Trade, (202) 863-6554,
Pursuant to the provisions of the 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention, codified into U.S. law as the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (hereinafter, “the Cultural Property Implementation Act” or “the Act”) (Pub. L. 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
On August 17, 2006, the Republic of Cyprus and the United States amended the 2002 Agreement (covering Pre-Classical and Classical archeological materials) to include a list of Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials dating from approximately the 4th century A.D. through approximately the 15th century A.D. that had been (and, at that time, were still) protected pursuant to an emergency action which was published in the
On July 13, 2007, CBP published CBP Dec. 07-52 in the
On July 13, 2012, CBP published CBP Dec. 12-13 in the
On August 1, 2012, CBP published a correcting amendment to CBP Dec. 12-13 in the
Import restrictions listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force
On July 12, 2016, the Department of State received a request by the Republic of Cyprus to extend the Agreement. The Department of State proposed to extend the import restrictions for an additional five years in a notice published in the
The Amended Designated List of archaeological objects and Byzantine and post-Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials is set forth in CBP Dec. 12-13. The herein mentioned Agreements and the Designated List and amended Designated Lists may be found at the following Web site address:
The restrictions on the importation of these archaeological, and ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials from Cyprus are to continue in effect through July 16, 2022. Importation of such materials from Cyprus continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). In addition, CBP has determined that such notice or public procedure would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the action being taken is essential to avoid interruption of the application of the existing import restrictions (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). For the same reason, a delayed effective date is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because this rule involves a foreign affairs function of the United States, it is not subject to either Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13771.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1).
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12), is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624;
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Temporary scheduling order.
The Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is issuing this temporary scheduling order to schedule the synthetic opioid,
This temporary scheduling order is effective July 14, 2017, until July 15, 2019, unless it is extended for an additional year or a permanent scheduling proceeding is completed. The DEA will publish a document in the
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 811, provides the Attorney General with the authority to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA for two years without regard to the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 811(b) if he finds that such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). In addition, if proceedings to control a substance are
Where the necessary findings are made, a substance may be temporarily scheduled if it is not listed in any other schedule under section 202 of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 812, or if there is no exemption or approval in effect for the substance under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 355. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). The Attorney General has delegated scheduling authority under 21 U.S.C. 811 to the Administrator of the DEA. 28 CFR 0.100.
Section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), requires the Administrator to notify the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of his intention to temporarily place a substance into Schedule I of the CSA.
To find that placing a substance temporarily into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, the Administrator is required to consider three of the eight factors set forth in section 201(c) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(c): The substance's history and current pattern of abuse; the scope, duration and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to the public health. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3). Consideration of these factors includes actual abuse, diversion from legitimate channels, and clandestine importation, manufacture, or distribution. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3).
A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling may only be placed into Schedule I. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1). Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).
Available data and information for acryl fentanyl, summarized below, indicate that this synthetic opioid has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The DEA's three-factor analysis, and the Assistant Secretary's May 2, 2017, letter, are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this action at
The recreational abuse of fentanyl-like substances continues to be a significant concern. These substances are distributed to users, often with unpredictable outcomes. Acryl fentanyl has recently been encountered by law enforcement and public health officials and the adverse health effects and outcomes are demonstrated by fatal overdose cases. The documented negative effects of acryl fentanyl are consistent with those of other opioids.
On October 1, 2014, the DEA implemented STARLiMS (a web-based, commercial laboratory information management system) to replace the System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) as its laboratory drug evidence data system of record. DEA laboratory data submitted after September 30, 2014, are reposited in STARLiMS. Data from STRIDE and STARLiMS were queried on May 5, 2017. STARLiMS registered 36 reports containing acryl fentanyl, from Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. According to STARLiMS, the first laboratory submission of acryl fentanyl occurred in July 2016 in Texas.
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a national drug forensic laboratory reporting system that systematically collects results from drug chemistry analyses conducted by other federal, state and local forensic laboratories across the country. NFLIS registered 74 reports containing acryl fentanyl from state or local forensic laboratories in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin (query date: May 5, 2017).
Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including acryl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Seizures of acryl fentanyl have been encountered in powder form, in solution, and packaged similar to that of heroin. Acryl fentanyl has been encountered as a single substance as well as in combination with other substances of abuse, including heroin, fentanyl, 4-fluoroisobutyryl fentanyl, and furanyl fentanyl. Acryl fentanyl has been connected to fatal overdoses, in which insufflation and intravenous routes of administration were documented.
Reports collected by the DEA demonstrate acryl fentanyl is being abused for its opioid properties. This abuse of acryl fentanyl has resulted in morbidity and mortality (
The population likely to abuse acryl fentanyl overlaps with the population abusing prescription opioid analgesics, heroin, fentanyl, and other fentanyl-related substances. This is evidenced by the routes of drug administration and drug use history documented in acryl fentanyl fatal overdose cases and encounters of the substance by law enforcement officials. Because abusers of acryl fentanyl are likely to obtain this substance through unregulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity are uncertain and inconsistent, thus posing significant adverse health risks to the end user. Individuals who initiate (
Acryl fentanyl exhibits pharmacological profiles similar to that of fentanyl and other µ-opioid receptor agonists. The toxic effects of acryl fentanyl in humans are demonstrated by overdose fatalities involving this substance. Abusers of acryl fentanyl may not know the origin, identity, or purity of this substance, thus posing significant adverse health risks when compared to abuse of pharmaceutical preparations of opioid analgesics, such as morphine and oxycodone.
Based on information reviewed by the DEA, the misuse and abuse of acryl fentanyl leads to the same qualitative public health risks as heroin, fentanyl and other opioid analgesic substances. As with any non-medically approved opioid, the health and safety risks for users are high. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of heroin and opioid analgesics are well established and have resulted in large numbers of drug treatment admissions, emergency department visits, and fatal overdoses.
Acryl fentanyl has been associated with numerous fatalities. At least 83 confirmed overdose deaths involving acryl fentanyl abuse have been reported from Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in 2016 and 2017. As the data demonstrates, the potential for fatal and non-fatal overdoses exists for acryl fentanyl; thus, acryl fentanyl poses an imminent hazard to the public safety.
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(3), based on the data and information summarized above, the continued uncontrolled manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, conduct of research and chemical analysis, possession, and abuse of acryl fentanyl pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. The DEA is not aware of any currently accepted medical uses for this substance in treatment in the United States. A substance meeting the statutory requirements for temporary scheduling, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), may only be placed into Schedule I. Substances in Schedule I are those that have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Available data and information for acryl fentanyl indicate that this substance has a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. As required by section 201(h)(4) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(4), the Administrator, through a letter dated April 17, 2017, notified the Assistant Secretary of the DEA's intention to temporarily place this substance into Schedule I. A notice of intent was subsequently published in the
In accordance with the provisions of section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), the Administrator considered available data and information, herein sets forth the grounds for his determination that it is necessary to temporarily schedule acryl fentanyl into Schedule I of the CSA, and finds that placement of this synthetic opioid into Schedule I of the CSA is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Because the Administrator hereby finds it necessary to temporarily place this synthetic opioid into Schedule I to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety, this temporary order scheduling acryl fentanyl will be effective on the date of publication in the
The CSA sets forth specific criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Permanent scheduling actions in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a) are subject to formal rulemaking procedures done “on the record after opportunity for a hearing” conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 21 U.S.C. 811. The permanent scheduling process of formal rulemaking affords interested parties with appropriate process and the government with any additional relevant information needed to make a determination. Final decisions that conclude the permanent scheduling process of formal rulemaking are subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 877. Temporary scheduling orders are not subject to judicial review. 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(6).
Upon the effective date of this temporary order, acryl fentanyl will become subject to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, engagement in research, and conduct of instructional activities or chemical analysis with, and possession of Schedule I controlled substances including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Section 201(h) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. 811(h), provides for a temporary scheduling action where such action is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. As provided in this subsection, the Attorney General may, by order, schedule a substance in Schedule I on a temporary basis. Such an order may not be issued before the expiration of 30 days from (1) the publication of a notice in the
Inasmuch as section 201(h) of the CSA directs that temporary scheduling actions be issued by order and sets forth the procedures by which such orders are to be issued, the DEA believes that the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553, do not apply to this temporary scheduling action. In the alternative, even assuming that this action might be subject to 5 U.S.C. 553, the Administrator finds that there is good cause to forgo the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553, as any further delays in the process for issuance of temporary scheduling orders would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest in view of the manifest urgency to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.
Further, the DEA believes that this temporary scheduling action is not a “rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 601(2), and, accordingly, is not subject to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The requirements for the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603(a) are not applicable where, as here, the DEA is not required by the APA or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking.
Additionally, this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), section 3(f), and, accordingly, this action has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This action will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) it is determined that this action does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
As noted above, this action is an order, not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is inapplicable, as it applies only to rules. However, if this were a rule, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, “any rule for which an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the federal agency promulgating the rule determines.” 5 U.S.C. 808(2). It is in the public interest to schedule this substance immediately to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. This temporary scheduling action is taken pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h), which is specifically designed to enable the DEA to act in an expeditious manner to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety. 21 U.S.C. 811(h) exempts the temporary scheduling order from standard notice and comment rulemaking procedures to ensure that the process moves swiftly. For the same reasons that underlie 21 U.S.C. 811(h), that is, the DEA's need to move quickly to place this substance into Schedule I because it poses an imminent hazard to the public safety, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay implementation of the temporary scheduling order. Therefore, this order shall take effect immediately upon its publication. The DEA has submitted a copy of this temporary order to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General, although such filing is not required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act), 5 U.S.C. 801-808 because, as noted above, this action is an order, not a rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control,
For the reasons set out above, the DEA amends 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(h) * * *
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Final rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is finalizing the designation of the chemical alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers, as a list I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The DEA proposed control of APAAN, due to its use in clandestine laboratories to illicitly manufacture the schedule II controlled substances phenylacetone (also known as phenyl-2-propanone or P2P), methamphetamine, and amphetamine. This rulemaking finalizes, without change, the control of APAAN as a list I chemical.
This action does not establish a threshold for domestic and international transactions of APAAN. As such, all transactions involving APAAN, regardless of size, shall be regulated. In addition, chemical mixtures containing APAAN are not exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration. Therefore, all transactions of chemical mixtures containing any quantity of APAAN shall be regulated pursuant to the CSA. However, manufacturers may submit an application for exemption for those mixtures that do not qualify for automatic exemption.
Michael J. Lewis, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) gives the Attorney General the authority to specify, by regulation, chemicals as list I or list II chemicals. 21 U.S.C. 802 (34) and (35). A “list I chemical” is a chemical that is used in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of title II of the CSA, and is important to the manufacture of the controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. 802(34). A “list II chemical” is a chemical (other than a list I chemical) that is used in manufacturing a controlled substance in violation of title II of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 802(35). The current list of all listed chemicals is published at 21 CFR 1310.02. Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b), the Attorney General has delegated his authority to designate list I and list II chemicals to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
In addition, the United States is a Party to the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988 Convention). When the United States receives notification that a chemical has been added to Table I or Table II of the 1988 Convention pursuant to article 12, the United States is required to take measures it deems appropriate to monitor the manufacture and distribution of that chemical within the United States and to prevent its diversion. In addition, the 1988 Convention requires the United States to take other specified measures related to that chemical, including measures related to its international trade.
By a letter dated April 9, 2014, the Secretary-General of the United Nations informed the United States Government that the chemical alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) was added to Table I of the 1988 Convention. This letter was prompted by a March 19, 2014, decision at the 57th Session of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to add APAAN to Table I. As a Party to the 1988 Convention, the United States is obligated, pursuant to article 12, to take measures it deems appropriate to monitor the manufacture and distribution of APAAN within the United States and to prevent its diversion. Article 12 also obligates the United States to take other specified measures related to APAAN, including measures related to its international trade. By designating APAAN, which is a primary precursor for the manufacture of phenylacetone (also known as phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) or benzyl methyl ketone), methamphetamine, and amphetamine, as a list I chemical, the United States will fulfill its obligations under the 1988 Convention.
On December 12, 2016, DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing control of APAAN, due to its use in clandestine laboratories to illicitly manufacture the schedule II controlled substances phenylacetone (also known as phenyl-2-propanone or P2P), methamphetamine, and amphetamine. 81 FR 89402. In response to the NPRM, only one comment was received. This comment was supportive of the DEA's proposed control of APAAN. As such, this rulemaking finalizes the control of APAAN as a list I chemical.
On the effective date of this final rule, handlers of APAAN shall be subject to the chemical regulatory provisions of the CSA, including 21 CFR parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316. Since even a small amount of APAAN can make a significant amount of P2P, this action does not establish a threshold for domestic and import transactions of APAAN in accordance with the provisions of 21 CFR 1310.04(g). Therefore, all APAAN transactions, regardless of size, will be regulated
Under this final rulemaking, chemical mixtures containing APAAN shall not be exempt from regulatory requirements at any concentration, unless an application for exemption of a chemical mixture is submitted by an APAAN manufacturer, and the application is reviewed and accepted and the mixture exempted by the DEA under 21 CFR 1310.13. Therefore, all chemical mixtures containing any quantity of APAAN shall be subject to CSA control, unless the APAAN manufacturer is granted an exemption by the application process in accordance with 21 CFR 1310.13. This rule modifies the “Table of Concentration Limits” in 21 CFR 1310.12(c) to reflect the fact that chemical mixtures containing any amount of APAAN are subject to CSA chemical control provisions.
The DEA has implemented an application process to exempt certain chemical mixtures from the requirements of the CSA and its implementing regulations. 21 CFR 1310.13. Manufacturers may submit an application for exemption for those mixtures that do not qualify for automatic exemption. Exemption status may be granted if the DEA determines that the mixture is formulated in such a way that it cannot be easily used in the illicit production of a controlled substance, and that the listed chemical or chemicals cannot be readily recovered. 21 CFR 1310.13(a)(1)-(2).
The designation of APAAN as a list I chemical shall subject APAAN handlers (manufacturers, distributors, importers, and exporters) to all of the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal actions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, importing, and exporting of a list I chemical. Upon publication of this final rule, persons handling APAAN, including regulated chemical mixtures containing APAAN, shall be required to comply with the following list I chemical regulations:
1.
Upon publication of this final rule, any person manufacturing, distributing, importing, or exporting APAAN or a chemical mixture containing APAAN will become subject to the registration requirement under the CSA. The DEA recognizes, however, that it is not possible for persons who are subject to the registration requirement to immediately complete and submit an application for registration and for the DEA to immediately issue registrations for those activities. Therefore, to allow continued legitimate commerce in APAAN, the DEA is establishing in 21 CFR 1310.09, a temporary exemption from the registration requirement for persons desiring to engage in activities with APAAN, provided that the DEA receives a properly completed application for registration or exemption of a chemical mixture on or before August 14, 2017. The temporary exemption for such persons will remain in effect until the DEA takes final action on their application for registration or application for exemption of a chemical mixture.
The temporary exemption applies solely to the registration requirement; all other chemical control requirements, including recordkeeping and reporting, would become effective on the effective date of this final rule. Therefore, all transactions of APAAN and chemical mixtures containing APAAN will be regulated while an application for registration or exemption is pending. This is necessary because not regulating these transactions could result in increased diversion of chemicals desirable to drug traffickers.
Additionally, the temporary exemption does not suspend applicable federal criminal laws relating to APAAN, nor does it supersede State or local laws or regulations. All handlers of APAAN must comply with applicable State and local requirements in addition to the CSA regulatory controls.
2.
Each regulated bulk manufacturer of a listed chemical must submit manufacturing, inventory, and use data on an annual basis. 21 CFR 1310.05(d). Existing standard industry reports containing the required information will be acceptable, provided the information is separate or readily retrievable from the report.
21 CFR 1310.05(a) requires that each regulated person shall report to the DEA any regulated transaction involving an extraordinary quantity of a listed chemical, an uncommon method of payment or delivery, or any other circumstance that the regulated person believes may indicate that the listed chemical will be used in violation of the CSA and its corresponding regulations. Regulated persons are also required to report any proposed regulated transaction with a person whose description or other identifying characteristic the Administration has previously furnished to the regulated person; any unusual or excessive loss or disappearance of a listed chemical under the control of the regulated person; any in-transit loss in which the regulated person is the supplier; and any domestic regulated transaction in a tableting or encapsulating machine.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This final rulemaking, which adds APAAN as a list I chemical, has been developed in accordance with the
To determine whether this action is a significant regulatory action, the DEA utilized a least cost option analysis. At the outset, the DEA determined that the primary costs of this rule would come from complying with the registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and export and import requirements set forth in the CSA. Therefore, under the least cost option, an entity would choose to discontinue the sale of APAAN if proceeds from the sale are less than the cost of complying with the rule.
The DEA has not identified any industrial uses of APAAN by domestic entities and its potential usage appears to be limited to research. Based on independent research following a 2013 United Nations Questionnaire/Survey on APAAN, the DEA identified three entities that have each imported APAAN. Two of the three entities had average annual sales of APAAN totaling $13 during the analysis period. The third entity had average annual sales of APAAN totaling $1,440 during the same period. Other chemical distributors list APAAN in their chemical catalogs. However, these entities do not manufacture APAAN, instead opting to purchase APAAN from international sources to fill special orders. These entities do not stock APAAN in inventory and the vast majority had no previous sales of APAAN.
The registration fee for importers of a list I chemical is $1,523 per year. Based on the least cost option, these three entities would choose to discontinue the sale of APAAN because complying with the rule is more costly. Thus, the annual economic impact of the rule is $1,467 (total annual sales of APAAN from the three affected entities). Therefore, this is evidence that this rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more and is not a significant regulatory action.
Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017 and published in the
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects 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.
The Acting Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of this rule is to designate APAAN as a list I chemical under the CSA. No less restrictive measures (
Two entities earned $13 in annual sales of APAAN while the third entity earned $1,440 in annual sales of APAAN. The cost of registration alone is $1,523 for each entity. Therefore, the DEA anticipates that each entity will discontinue the sale of APAAN because the cost of compliance is greater than the annual sales. As a result, the annual economic impact of the rule is $1,467.
Using 1% of annual revenue as the criteria for significant economic impact, the DEA estimates that none of the three small entities will experience a significant economic impact. The cost of the rule as a percentage of annual revenue for the three entities is, 0.00044%, 0.00036%, and 0.038%, respectively, which is less than 1% of the entities' annual income. Therefore, the rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
On the basis of information contained in the “Regulatory Flexibility Act” section above, the DEA has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not impose a new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. The DEA does not anticipate that it will receive new registration applications for the purpose of engaging in transactions involving this chemical. The transactions in this chemical of which the DEA is aware are very small, and it does not appear to the DEA that it would be economically justifiable because DEA believes there is no legitimate market for manufacturing or engaging in commercial transactions in this chemical. This action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Congressional Review Act). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not cause a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and export markets. However, the DEA has submitted a copy of this final rule to both Houses of Congress and to the Comptroller General.
Drug traffic control, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1310 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 802, 827(h), 830, 871(b), 890.
(a) * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile and its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers (APAAN)
(n)(1) Each person required under sections 302 and 1007 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 822, 957) to obtain a registration to manufacture, distribute, import, or export regulated alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers, including regulated chemical mixtures pursuant to § 1310.12, is temporarily exempted from the registration requirement, provided that the DEA receives a properly completed application for registration or application for exemption for a chemical mixture containing alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers, pursuant to § 1310.13 on or before August 14, 2017. The exemption will remain in effect for each person who has made such application until the Administration has approved or denied that application. This exemption applies only to registration; all other chemical control requirements set forth in the Act and parts 1309, 1310, 1313, and 1316 of this chapter remain in full force and effect.
(2) Any person who manufactures, distributes, imports or exports a chemical mixture containing alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (APAAN) and its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers whose application for exemption is subsequently denied by the DEA must obtain a registration with the DEA. A temporary exemption from the registration requirement will also be provided for those persons whose applications for exemption are denied, provided that the DEA receives a properly completed application for registration on or before 30 days following the date of official DEA notification that the application for exemption has been denied. The temporary exemption for such persons will remain in effect until the DEA takes final action on their registration application.
(c) * * *
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Implementation and request for comments; correction.
On January 18, 2017, HUD published a document in the
With respect to this supplementary document, contact Ariel Pereira, Associate General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10238, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
Please direct all questions about the January 18, 2017 document to
On July 29, 2016, HOTMA was signed into law (Pub. L. 114-201, 130 Stat. 782). HOTMA made numerous changes to statutes that govern HUD programs, including section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437f). HUD issued a notice on October 24, 2016, at 81 FR 73030, announcing to the public which of the statutory changes made by HOTMA could be implemented immediately, and which statutory changes required further guidance from HUD before owners, public housing agencies (PHAs), or other grantees may use the new statutory provisions.
On January 18, 2017, HUD published a second document at 82 FR 5458, making multiple HOTMA provisions impacting the HCV program effective and requesting comments. Several of the comments pointed out the need for technical corrections or clarifications to the January 18, 2017, implementation document. This document makes several technical corrections and clarifications to the January 18, 2017, implementation document, in part based on the public comments. HUD also received comments recommending changes that were not technical corrections or clarifications, but rather suggested alternative approaches to implementing the HOTMA provisions. HUD will take those comments under consideration.
HOTMA amended section 8(o) of the 1937 Act to provide a statutory definition of units owned by a PHA, overriding the regulatory definitions at 24 CFR 983.3 and 24 CFR 982.352. HOTMA establishes three categories under which a project is PHA-owned. A project is PHA-owned when the project is: (1) Owned by the PHA; (2) owned by an entity wholly controlled by the PHA; or (3) owned by a limited liability company (LLC) or limited partnership in which the PHA (or an entity wholly controlled by the PHA) holds a controlling interest in the managing member or general partner. The January 18, 2017, implementation document (page 5463, section B), used the phrase “50 percent or more” to define a level of control that constitutes a controlling interest and would thus indicate PHA ownership. The threshold for control should be “more than 50 percent” rather than “50 percent or more.”
This document also corrects a typographical error contained in the January 18, 2017, implementation document in the definition of “controlling interest” for purposes of establishing PHA ownership. Specifically, the implementation document incorrectly refers to equivalent levels of control in other “organizational” structures. This document corrects the definition to refer to “ownership” structures.
HOTMA amended the 1937 Act to except certain units from both the PHA program unit percentage limitation at section 8(o)(13)(B) and the income-mixing requirement at section 8(o)(13)(D). Specifically, HOTMA excepts units of project-based assistance that “are attached to units previously subject to federally required rent restrictions or receiving another type of long-term subsidy or project-based assistance provided by the Secretary.” The January 18, 2017, implementation document (page 5465, section C.2.C, and page 5467, section C.3.D, respectively) inadvertently excluded from the list of excepted units those units that have received assistance under section 201 of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978. Therefore, HUD is correcting the January 18, 2017, implementation document to add the Flexible Subsidy Program in both lists.
In discussing the units that are not subject to the PBV program unit limitation, the January 18, 2017, implementation document describes the circumstances under which PBV new construction units will qualify as replacement housing for the covered units and likewise are exempt from the program limitation (page 5465, section C.2.C(2)). One of the requirements is that the newly constructed unit is located on the same site as the unit it is replacing. In describing this requirement, the January 18 2017, implementation document inadvertently referred to the “site of the original public housing development” instead of “site of the original development.” To avoid any indication that this requirement is only applicable to former public housing units as opposed to all the covered forms of HUD assistance listed earlier in the January 18, 2017, implementation document, C.2.C(2)(b) is revised to strike “public housing” from the paragraph.
HOTMA amends the 1937 Act with respect to the threshold for exemption from the income-mixing requirement. The income mixing requirement
The January 18, 2017, implementation document states that “if the FSS family fails to successfully complete the FSS contract of participation or supportive services objective and consequently
Therefore, HUD is correcting the language on page 5467 to remove the ambiguities and better express the requirements of the HOTMA changes.
HOTMA amended the 1937 Act with respect to the types of units that are exempt from the income-mixing requirement. The January 18, 2017, implementation document (page 5467, section C.3.B(3)), noted that “projects that are in a census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or less” are excluded from the cap. However, the January 18, 2017, implementation document should have clarified that while PBV projects located in a census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or less are excluded from the 25 percent unit cap, those projects are subject to an alternative income mixing requirement that is the greater of 25 units or 40 percent of the units. HUD is adding a sentence to this section as a clarification.
There are two typographical errors in the last sentence of section C.3.C on page 5467. The word “contact” should be “contract” and the last word of the sentence should be “project” and not “unit”.
HOTMA amended the language in section 8(o)(13)(D) to exempt certain types of units receiving PBV assistance from having a project cap entirely. These are PBV units that were previously subject to certain federal rent restrictions or receiving another type of long-term housing subsidy provided by HUD. The January 18, 2017, implementation document (page 5468, section C.3.D(2)), provided an incorrect definition of new construction units that qualify for the exception as replacement housing. The definition in section C.3.D(2)(b) was supposed to match the definition provided on page 5465, section C.2.C(2)(b).
HOTMA amended the 1937 Act to add a new section 8(o)(13)(N), which allows a PHA that is engaged in an initiative to improve, develop, or replace a public housing property or site to attach PBVs to projects in which the PHA has an ownership or controlling interest, without following a competitive process. In the January 18, 2017, implementation document (page 5471, section C.6), HUD stated that, in order to avail itself of this exemption from the competitive award of PBVs, a PHA must “be planning rehabilitation or construction on the project with a minimum of $25,000 per unit in hard costs.” However, this minimum per unit cost would not be applicable in a situation where a PHA is replacing a public housing property or site with existing housing owned or controlled by the PHA.
Accordingly, in FR Doc. 2017-0091, beginning on page 5458 of the
1. On page 5463, in the first column, the final sentence of paragraph (3) is corrected to read as follows:
A “controlling interest” is—
(A) holding more than 50 percent of the stock of any corporation;
(B) having the power to appoint more than 50 percent of the members of the board of directors of a non-stock corporation (such as a non-profit corporation);
(C) where more than 50 percent of the members of the board of directors of any corporation also serve as directors, officers, or employees of the PHA;
(D) holding more than 50 percent of all managing member interests in an LLC;
(E) holding more than 50 percent of all general partner interests in a partnership; or
(F) equivalent levels of control in other ownership structures.
2. On page 5465, beginning in the first column, paragraph C(1)(b)(i) is corrected by adding at the end a new paragraph, to read as follows:
(VII) Flexible Subsidy Program (section 201 of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978).
3. On page 5465, beginning in the second column, paragraph (b) is corrected by removing “public housing” in the second sentence.
4. On page 5467, in the second column, the last two paragraphs of paragraph B(2) are corrected to read as follows:
A PHA may not require participation in the supportive services as a condition of living in an excepted unit, although the family must be eligible to receive the supportive services, and the supportive services must be offered to the family. As such, a PHA may not rely solely on a supportive services program that would require the family to engage in the services once enrolled, such as FSS, for the unit to qualify for the supportive services exception. In the case of a family that chooses to participate in the supportive services, as described by the PHA in the administrative plan, and successfully completes the supportive services objective, the unit continues to be an excepted unit for as long as the family resides in the unit even though the family is no longer eligible for the service.
However, if a family becomes ineligible for the supportive services during their tenancy (for reasons other than successfully completing the supportive services objective), the unit will no longer be considered an excepted unit under this category. If the PHA does not want to reduce the number of excepted units in their project-based portfolio, the PHA may: (i) Substitute the excepted unit for a non-excepted unit if it is possible to do so in accordance with 24 CFR 983.207(a), so that the unit does not lose its excepted status, or (ii) temporarily remove the unit from the PBV HAP contract and provide the family with tenant-based assistance. Note that the family would have to be ineligible for
5. On page 5467, in the second column, paragraph B(3) is corrected by adding a new sentence at the end, to read as follows:
“For these projects, the project cap is the greater of 25 units or 40 percent (instead of 25 percent) of the units in the project.”
6. On page 5467, in the third column, the last sentence of paragraph (C) is corrected to read as follows:
The PBV HAP contract may not be changed to the HOTMA requirement if the change would jeopardize an assisted family's eligibility for continued assistance at the project (
7. On page 5467, beginning in the third column, paragraph D(1)(b)(i) is corrected by adding at the end a new paragraph, to read as follows:
(VII) Flexible Subsidy Program (section 201 of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978).
8. On page 5468, in the second column, the second sentence of paragraph (b) is corrected by removing the parentheses and correcting it to read as follows:
An expansion of or modification to the prior project's site boundaries as a result of the design of the new construction project is acceptable as long as a majority of the replacement units are built back on the site of the original development and any units that are not built on the existing site share a common border with, are across a public right of way from, or touch that site.
9. On page 5471, in the third column, the second paragraph of section 6 is corrected to read as follows:
In order to be subject to this non-competitive exception, the PHA must be planning: (A) rehabilitation or construction of the project or site with a minimum of $25,000 per unit in hard costs; or (B) replacement of the project or site with existing housing that substantially complies with HUD's housing quality standards. The PHA must detail in its administrative plan how it intends to use PBVs to improve, develop, or replace any public housing property or site, and, if applicable, must detail what works it plans to do on the property or site and how many units of PBV it is planning an adding to the site.
Rule document 17-00911 was inadvertently published in the Proposed Rules section of the issue of Wednesday, January 18, 2017, beginning on page 5458. It should have appeared in the Rules section.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in August 2017. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.
Effective August 1, 2017.
Deborah C. Murphy (
PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (
The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for August 2017.
The August 2017 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.75 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for July 2017, these assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate rate and are otherwise unchanged.
PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public
Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during August 2017, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.
The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge which carries US 40 and US 322 across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the 7th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.
The deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday, August 5, 2017.
The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0649] is available at
If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email
The DelMoSports, LLC, on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge that carries US 40 and US 322 across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to ensure the safety of the increased volumes of cyclists and spectators that will be participating in the 7th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon on Saturday August 5, 2017. The bridge is a double bascule drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 10 feet above mean high water in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open position.
The current operating regulation is set out in 33 CFR 117.733(f). Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday, August 5, 2017.
The NJICW (Inside Thorofare) is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this temporary deviation.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, if at least 10 minutes notice is given, and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie zone. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from certain portions of Lake Huron during firework displays in East Moran Bay. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the fallout from the aerial displays.
This rule is effective without actual notice from July 14, 2017 to 10:00 p.m. on September 10, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 10:00 p.m. on June 24, 2017 to July 14, 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 Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 906-253-2443, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard received the safety zone request on March 9, 2017. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of the requested safety zone with sufficient time for a comment period to run before the start of the fireworks display. Thus, delaying this rule to wait for a notice and comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public from the potential hazards associated with the fireworks display.
We are issuing this final rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
On every Saturday from June 24th to September 9th, 2017 and on July 4th 2017, St. Ignace will have fireworks displays at the end of the Arnold Transit Mill Slip. The state of Michigan regulates fireworks displays. This action is only for the safety zone. The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that the pyrotechnics display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, falling and burning debris, and collisions among spectator vessels. The special design of water shells requires a safety zone of at least 1,400 feet.
This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels during the aforementioned displays. The temporary safety zone will encompass all U.S. waters of Lake Huron within a 1,400 foot radius from the end of Arnold Transit Mill Slip located at 45°52′24.6″ N., 084°43′18.1″ W. The safety zone will be enforced from 10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on June 24, 2017, from 10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 4, 2017, from 10:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on July 8, 2017, from 9:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. on July 15, 2017, from 9:45 p.m. to 11:15 p.m. on July 22, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 29, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on August 5, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on August 12, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on August 19, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on August 26, 2017, from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on September 2, 2017, from 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on September 9, 2017. If the fireworks are cancelled on Saturday due to inclement weather, then this section will be enforced on the following day. The rule will be enforced with actual notice as-needed to mitigate risks associated with the display.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and E.O.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
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 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 is confined to area encompassing the potential firework fallout area and will be enforced only for the duration of the display. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zones when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of the vessels intending to transit or anchor in the vicinity of the safety zone.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons identified in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and 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 E.O. 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 establishment of a safety zone and, therefore, is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirement, 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, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie will be aboard a Coast Guard vessel.
(4) Vessel Operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie, or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or telephone at 906-635-3233. 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, Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Oswego Harbor, Oswego, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Oswego Harbor during the Oswego Harborfest Water Ski Show on July 29, 2017 and July 30, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with high speed craft and water skiers. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 10:45 a.m. on July 29, 2017 to 5:45 p.m. July 30, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a water ski show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include high speed craft and multiple water skiers performing in a relatively small area. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the water ski show is taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 29, 2017 and July 30, 2017 from 10:45 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Oswego Harbor; Oswego, NY contained within the following points: 43°27′27.7″ N., 076°30′38.1″ W., then east to 43°27′28.6″ N., 076°30′34.0″ W., then northwest to 43°27′38.3″ N., 076°30′39.6″ W., then west to 43°27′38.5″ N., 076°30′44.8″ W., then back to the point of origin and 43°27′50.1″ N., 076°31′15.5″ W., then southwest to 43°27′42.2″ N., 076°31′36.0″ W., then northwest to 43°27′46.1″ N., 076°31′40.0″ W., then northeast to 43°27′55.2″ N., 076°31′17.2″ W., and returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced only during the water ski performances. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within the particular areas are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels 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,
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that it is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone within Milwaukee Harbor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from certain portions of Milwaukee Harbor due to an air and water show. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the air and water show.
This rule will be effective from 9:00 a.m. on July 13, 2017 through 5:00 p.m. on July 16, 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
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details for this event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Specifically, the Coast Guard finalized the details regarding location and date for this display on June 6, 2017. 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 the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the Milwaukee Air and Water Show from July 13, 2017 through July 16, 2017, which is discussed further below.
We are issuing this final rule, and 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 legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
In May of 2017 the Coast Guard confirmed that an extension of the safety zone for the Milwaukee Air and Water Show would provide increased safety for all participants, spectators and recreational waterway users. This extension will address boaters using the North gap of the Milwaukee Harbor and prevent them from unknowingly entering an unsafe area and the established safety zone from July 13, 2017 through July 16, 2017.
This air and water show is expected to draw a large group of waterborne spectators. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the likelihood of transiting vessels in the waters over which the air and water show participants will operate presents a significant risk of serious injuries or fatalities. Such hazards include flaming debris from dropped flares, and falling aircraft.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of persons and vessels during the air and water show. This zone is effective from 9 a.m. on July 13, 2017 through 5 p.m. on July 16, 2017. The safety zone will encompasses all waters of Milwaukee Harbor in the vicinity of Lakeshore State Park within an area bounded by the following coordinates, beginning at 43°02.455′ N., 087°52.880′ W.; then southeast to 43°02.230′ N., 087°52.061′ W.; then northeast to 43°04.451′ N., 087°50.503′ W.; then northwest to 43°04.738′ N., 087°51.445′ W.; then southwest to 43°02.848′ N., 087°52.772′ W.; then returning to the point of origin (NAD 83).
This rule will be only be enforced from 9:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on each day from July 13, 2017 through July 16, 2017.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that the zone in this rule is or will be enforced in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative may be contacted at 414-747-7182 or via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the cost 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 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).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced on an as-needed basis. Under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor within the waters of Milwaukee Harbor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin during the times in which the safety zone is enforced in July of 2017.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no 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 the establishment of a safety zone and, therefore, is in the Milwaukee Harbor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Normally such actions are categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
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 permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative may be contacted at 414-747-7182 or 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 Lake Michigan or her on-scene representative.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Saint Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Saint Lawrence River during the BASS Master Fireworks Display on July 22, 2017. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect mariners and vessels from the navigational hazards associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.
This rule is effective from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. on July 22, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule. The event sponsor did not submit notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks display.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a maritime fireworks show presents significant risks to public safety and property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations, dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks show is taking place.
This rule establishes a safety zone on July 22, 2017 from 8:45 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the Saint Lawrence River, Ogden Island, Waddington, NY within a 560-foot radius of position 44°52′16.58″ N. and 075°12′18.08″ W. (NAD 83).
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders 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 Instruction, which pertains to establishment of safety zones. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.
Postal Service
Final rule; technical correction.
The U.S. Postal Service® is making a technical correction to ensure that its regulations governing the use of mail covers are consistent with current mail classification terminology, by changing the product name “Standard Mail®” to “USPS Marketing Mail
This rule is effective July 14, 2017.
Questions or comments on this action are welcome. Mail or deliver written comments to David Forde, Acting Assistant Postal Inspector in Charge, Office of Counsel, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 3136, Washington, DC 20260-3100.
David Forde, Acting Assistant Postal Inspector in Charge, Office of Counsel, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, 202-268-7402,
On December 21, 2016, the Postal Service
Administrative practice and procedure, Crime, Law enforcement, Penalties, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR part 233 as follows:
39 U.S.C. 101, 102, 202, 204, 401, 402, 403, 404, 406, 410, 411, 1003, 3005(e)(1); 12 U.S.C. 3401-3422; 18 U.S.C. 981, 983, 1956, 1957, 2254, 3061; 21 U.S.C. 881; Sec. 662, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-378.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision dated August 30, 2016, submitted by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to the EPA. The purpose of this SIP revision is to provide for attainment of the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area. The Arecibo Nonattainment Area is comprised of a portion of Arecibo Municipality in Puerto Rico with a 4 kilometer radius surrounding The Battery Recycling Company, Inc. This SIP revision includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration showing attainment of the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard, contingency measures and a narrative on control measures that includes reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology, and reasonable further progress.
This rule is effective on August 14, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 14, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0559. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Mazeeda Khan, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3715, or by email at
The
On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), lowering the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation process is described in CAA section 107(d)(1). On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), the EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS (first round of designations), which became effective on December 31, 2010, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2007-2009, where there was sufficient data to support a nonattainment designation. On November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), the EPA promulgated its second round of designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, which became effective on December 31, 2011, based on air quality monitoring data for calendar years 2008-2010. The Arecibo Area was designated as nonattainment for the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the second round of designations, based on air quality monitoring data that exceeded the 2008 Lead NAAQS. This designation triggered a requirement for Puerto Rico to submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision by June 30, 2013, with a plan for how the Area would attain the 2008 Lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2016.
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) initially submitted a lead SIP revision for the Arecibo Area on January 30, 2015. The EPA proposed to disapprove the January 30, 2015 submittal on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 10159). One comment was received from the Chairman of the PREQB, Weldin Ortiz Franco. The PREQB rescinded the January 30, 2015 submittal and replaced it with the August 30, 2016 lead SIP submittal for the Arecibo Area. The August 30, 2016 SIP submittal included the base year emissions inventory and the attainment demonstration. The EPA proposed to approve this submittal on November 7, 2016. (81 FR 78097). The EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan includes a review of the pollutant addressed, emissions inventory requirements, modeling demonstration of lead attainment, contingency measures and narrative on control measures that includes reasonably available control measures (RACM)/reasonably available control technology (RACT), and reasonable further progress (RFP) for the Arecibo Area. Today's rule represents the EPA's final action on Puerto Rico lead SIP attainment plan.
The public comment period for the November 7, 2016 proposed approval of the PREQB lead SIP revision closed on December 7, 2016. We received comments from Mr. Jesus Garcia Oyola and Mr. Wilfredo Velez Hernandez, Earthjustice, and Madres De Negro De Arecibo, Inc. In general, all three commenters stated that the EPA should disapprove Puerto Rico's proposed August 30, 2016 SIP revision.
A summary of the comments and the EPA's responses are provided below. Comments from Jesus Garcia Oyola and Wilfredo Velez Hernandez are referred to as “Garcia/Velez”, comments from Earthjustice are referred to as “Earthjustice” and comments from Madres De Negro De Arecibo, Inc. are referred to as “Madres De Negro.” These responses address “significant comments, criticisms, and new data” submitted during the comment period, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(6)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(6)(B). The EPA is not addressing those comments that do not relate to the underlying purpose of the November 17, 2016 proposed SIP approval of the attainment demonstration for the Arecibo Area, such as comments related to the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The EPA and the PREQB also considered fugitive emissions from the piles of lead slag and other materials stored on the facility property. It is noteworthy that the TBRCI site has been proposed for the Superfund National Priorities List
9.
10.
11.
Regardless, while the emissions inventory number associated with the
12.
13.
14.
The data is published in AQS as required by 40 CFR part 58. The public can access this data by visiting
15.
16.
The contingency measures in Puerto Rico's attainment plan can take effect without further rulemaking activities; thus, the EPA disagrees that the contingency measures included in the SIP revision do not satisfy the CAA.
17.
18.
The EPA is approving into the SIP Puerto Rico's lead attainment plan for the Arecibo Area. Specifically, the EPA is taking final action to approve Puerto Rico's August 30, 2016 submittal, which includes the attainment demonstration, base year emissions inventory, modeling, and contingency measures, and addresses RACM/RACT and the RFP plan.
The EPA notes that since September 2015, the month after the PREQB withdrew the construction and operating permits for TBRCI, the data from the source oriented Arecibo air monitoring site indicates the lead concentration in the ambient air has been below the three-month rolling average for the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the 2016 modeling indicates the area will attain the NAAQS. The SIP for the Arecibo Area adequately demonstrates a trajectory towards attainment; thus, the EPA is approving the attainment demonstration, emissions inventory, modeling, control measures, RACM/RACT and RFP.
The EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that Puerto Rico has developed the Lead attainment plan in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51, and the EPA's technical requirements for a Lead SIP. Therefore, the EPA is approving into the SIP the Lead attainment plan for Arecibo, Puerto Rico.
A detailed analysis of the EPA's review and rationale for approving the lead SIP submittal as addressing these CAA requirements may be found in the November 7, 2016 proposed rulemaking action (81 FR 78097) which is available on line at
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and,
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(40) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on August 30, 2016 for the 2008 lead NAAQS.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional information—EPA approves Puerto Rico's Attainment Demonstration for the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area including the base year emissions inventory, modeling demonstration of lead attainment, contingency measures, reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology, and reasonable further progress.
EPA approves revisions to the Puerto Rico State Implementation Plan submitted on August 30, 2016, consisting of the base year emissions inventory, modeling demonstration of lead attainment, contingency measures, reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control technology, and reasonable further progress for the Arecibo Lead Nonattainment Area. These revisions contain control measures that will bring Puerto Rico into attainment for the Lead NAAQS by the end of 2018.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). This SIP revision includes regulatory amendments that repeal
This rule is effective on August 14, 2017.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2016-0296. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Eric Rackauskas, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 [mail code: OPE05-2], Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1628, fax (617) 918-0628, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On May 8, 2017 (82 FR 21348), EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maine. The NPR proposed approval of Maine's revised Chapter 118,
A detailed discussion of Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision and EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the SIP revision were provided in the NPR and will not be restated in this notice. No public comments were received on the NPR.
EPA is approving Maine's April 13, 2016 SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is approving Maine's revised Chapter 118,
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 of the State of Maine's revised Chapter 118 described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National 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 EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 12, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of difenoconazole in or on cottonseed subgroup 20C; rice, grain; and rice, wild, grain. It also amends the existing tolerance for cotton, gin byproducts, and removes the tolerance for cotton, undelinted seed. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these
This regulation is effective July 14, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 12, 2017, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254, is available at
Michael Goodis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 12, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for difenoconazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with difenoconazole follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
Subchronic and chronic studies with difenoconazole in mice and rats showed decreased body weights, decreased body weight gains and effects on the liver (
The available toxicity studies indicated no increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits from
In a rat developmental toxicity study, developmental effects were observed at doses higher than those which caused maternal toxicity. Developmental effects in the rat included increased incidence of ossification of the thoracic vertebrae and thyroid, decreased number of sternal centers of ossification, increased number of ribs and thoracic vertebrae, and decreased number of lumbar vertebrae. In the rabbit study, developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at maternally toxic doses (decreased body weight gain and food consumption). Since the developmental effects are more severe than the maternal effects, qualitative susceptibility is indicated in the rabbit developmental study; however, the selected POD is protective of this effect. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the fetuses and offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal and parental animals.
In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, reduced fore-limb grip strength was observed on day one in males at the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL), and clinical signs of neurotoxicity were observed in females only at the highest dose tested. In a subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, decreased hind limb strength was observed in males only at the mid- and high-doses. The effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies were considered transient.
Although there is some evidence that difenoconazole affects antibody levels at doses that cause systemic toxicity, there are no indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune function, such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by difenoconazole.
Difenoconazole is not mutagenic, and no evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in rats. Evidence for carcinogenicity was seen in mice (liver tumors), but statistically significant carcinoma tumors were only induced at excessively-high doses. Adenomas (benign tumors) and liver necrosis only were seen at 300 ppm (46 and 58 milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) in males and females, respectively); the NOAEL in that study was 30 ppm. EPA has concluded that the chronic point of departure (POD) for assessing chronic risk (0.96 mg/kg/day) will be protective of any cancer effects for the following reasons: (1) Tumors were seen in only one species; (2) carcinoma tumors were observed only at the two highest doses (2,500 and 4,500 ppm) in the mouse carcinogenicity study; (3) benign tumors and necrosis were observed at the mid-dose (300 ppm) ; (4) the absence of tumors at the study's lower doses (30 ppm); (5) the absence of genotoxic or mutagenic effects. The cRfD of 0.96 mg/kg/day is well below the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of the mouse carcinogenicity study of 30 ppm (4.7 and 5.6 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively), at which no effects on the biological endpoints relevant to tumor development (
Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by difenoconazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
A summary of the toxicological endpoints for difenoconazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the
1.
i.
Such effects were identified for difenoconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
ii.
iii.
iv.
Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
• Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
• Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
• Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
For the chronic dietary exposure assessment, the Agency used average PCT estimates for existing uses as follows: Almond 10%, apple 20%, apricot 10%, broccoli 2.5%, Brussels sprouts 2.5%, cabbage 5%, cantaloupe 2.5%, carrot 5%, cauliflower 2.5%, cherry 2.5%, cucumber 5%, garlic 5%, grape 10%, grapefruit 2.5%, hazelnut 1%, nectarine 2.5%, onions 5%, orange 2.5%, peach 2.5%, pear 10%, pecan 2.5%, pepper 5%, pistachio 5%, plum/prune 10%, potato 20%, pumpkin 2.5%, soybean 2.5%, squash 5%, strawberry 2.5%, sugar beet 15%, tangerine 2.5%, tomato 25%, walnut 1%, watermelon 5%, and wheat (seed treatment) 10%.
In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7 years. EPA uses an average PCT value for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT value for each existing use is derived by combining available public and private market survey data for that use and averaged across all observations and is rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, for use in the analysis unless the average PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5% or 1%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% or 1%, respectively, as the average PCT value in the analysis. EPA uses a maximum PCT value for acute dietary risk analysis. The maximum PCT value is the highest observed maximum value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5% for use in the analysis, unless the maximum PCT value is estimated at less than 2.5%, in which case the Agency uses 2.5% as the maximum PCT value in the analysis.
The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which difenoconazole may be applied in a particular area.
2.
Based on the Tier II Pesticide in Water Calculator, the Revised Tier 1 Rice Model, the Surface Water Concentration Calculator, and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of total toxic residues of difenoconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 33.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.0 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposures estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of total toxic residues of difenoconazole for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 27.8 ppb for surface water and 0.60 ppb for ground water.
Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk assessment, the water concentration value of 33.4 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of
3.
Difenoconazole is currently registered for the following uses that could result in residential exposures: Treatment of ornamental plants in commercial and residential landscapes and interior plantscapes. EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, adult short-term dermal and inhalation exposure is expected from mixing, loading, and applying difenoconazole on ornamentals (gardens and trees). For residential post-application exposures, short-term dermal exposure is expected for both adults and children from post-application activities in treated residential landscapes.
The scenarios used in the aggregate assessment were those that resulted in the highest exposures. The highest exposures consist of the short-term dermal exposure to adults from post-application activities in treated gardens and short-term dermal exposure to children 6 to 11 years old from post-application activities in treated gardens. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at
4.
Difenoconazole is a member of the conazole class of fungicides containing the 1,2,4-triazole moiety. Although conazoles act similarly in plants (fungi) by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of major biochemical events (EPA, 2002).
In the case of conazoles, however, a variable pattern of toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of biochemical events including altered cholesterol levels, stress responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no evidence to indicate that difenoconazole shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other conazole pesticide, and EPA is not following a cumulative risk approach for this tolerance action. For information regarding EPA's procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at
This class of compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances for triazole-containing pesticides, including difenoconazole, EPA conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-containing fungicide. The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites (
The Agency's latest updated aggregate risk assessment for the triazole-containing metabolites was finalized on November 15, 2016 and includes the new uses in this rule. It is titled, “Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address the New Section 3 Registrations for Use of Difenoconazole on Rice and Cotton.” Aggregate risk estimates associated with 1,2,4-triazole (T) and the conjugated triazole metabolites (
1.
2.
3.
i. The toxicity database for difenoconazole is complete.
ii. There are no clear signs of neurotoxicity following acute, subchronic or chronic dosing in multiple species in the difenoconazole database. The effects observed in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are transient and showed in one sex (males as reduced fore-limb grip strength with no histologic findings), and the selected endpoints of toxicity for risk assessment are protective of any potential neurotoxicity. Based on the toxicity profile, and lack of concern for neurotoxicity, there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased susceptibility in
iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary risk assessment utilized tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT for the acute assessment; the chronic assessment was refined by using USDA PDP monitoring data, average field-trial residues for some commodities, tolerance-level residues for remaining commodities, and average PCT for some commodities. These assumptions will not underestimate dietary exposure to difenoconazole. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposure of children. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by difenoconazole.
EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
1.
2.
3.
Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 250 for children and 180 for adults. Because EPA's level of concern for difenoconazole is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
4.
5.
6.
Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method AG-575B) is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole in or on plant commodities. Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method REM 147.07b is available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole and CGA-205375 in livestock commodities. Adequate confirmatory methods are also available.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address:
In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however,
The Codex has not established a MRL for difenoconazole in or on cottonseed subgroup 20C; cotton gin byproducts; rice, grain; and rice, wild, grain.
Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of difenoconazole, 1-[2-[2-chloro-4-(4-chlorophenoxy)phenyl]-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolan-2-ylmethyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole, in or on cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.40 ppm; rice, grain at 7.0 ppm; and rice, wild, grain at 7.0 ppm. Additionally, this regulation amends the current tolerance for cotton, gin byproducts from 0.05 ppm to 15 ppm. Finally, EPA is removing the established tolerance for residues of difenoconazole in or on cotton, undelinted seed at 0.05 ppm because residues on cotton, undelinted seed are covered by the new tolerance for cottonseed subgroup 20C.
This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * * (1) * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Availability of updated Marine Safety Manual.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of Change-2 to the Marine Safety Manual (MSM), Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, and the corresponding Commandant Change Notice that highlights the changes made to that manual. MSM Volume III provides information and interpretations on international conventions and U.S. statutory and regulatory issues relating to marine industry personnel. This Commandant Change Notice discusses the substantive changes to Parts B and C of MSM Volume III. All changes are underlined in the final version and each changed page is annotated with CH-2 in the footer. The date of each change since
Unless specifically stated otherwise, Change-2 to Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, COMDTINST M16000.8B is in effect as of July 14, 2017.
To view the documents mentioned in this document, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document call or email Lieutenant Commander Corydon Heard, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-978-2704, email
If you discover a discrepancy between the manning or endorsements specified by the Certificate of Inspection/Safe Manning Documentation (COI/SMD) and the provisions of the MSM, Volume III, bring it to the attention of the OCMI with a view toward aligning with the revised MSM III. Documents discussed in this document should be available in the online docket within three business days of this publication. There will be no hardcopy distribution of this change. This change has been incorporated into the electronic copy of the manual available on the INTERNET at
Volume III of the Marine Safety Manual (MSM) provides information and interpretations on international conventions and U.S. statutes and regulations relating to marine industry personnel. The last updates to Volume III of the MSM were released on July 30, 2014 (79 FR 45451, Aug. 5, 2014). The Coast Guard published a notice in the
Specifically, substantive changes include: (1) Updated guidance to align with the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014; (2) manning scales for towing vessels certificated under Subchapter M from recently published Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule (81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016); and (3) various policy updates impacting vessel manning. Further, all manning scales throughout Part B Chapters 2, 4, 6 and 7 are presented in a new standard format. Additionally, a Suggested Safe Manning Proposal Template, Coast Guard Work Instruction, Master's Field Guide, and Verification Check-sheet have been added to the Annex. These are intended to aid Coast Guard personnel as well as owners/operators, masters and persons in charge of U.S. vessels, respectively.
We received 10 public comment responses to the July 15, 2016
Some commenters included a DOT mailing address in their comments. The Coast Guard no longer receives mail at the DOT Docket Management Facility. Each Coast Guard notice soliciting public comment includes instructions on how to comment on the online docket at
The basic ideas and principles encompassed in the initial and supplemental drafts remain. Some commenters proposed revisions to the MSM or requested additional clarification. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard has made some additional revisions. The Coast Guard notes, however, that the MSM (and any revisions made to the MSM) reflect current law and regulation and are intended to provide guidance and information to marine industry personnel. For an in-depth discussion of the individual comments submitted, please visit the docket for this notice to view submitted comments and the change matrix.
It should be noted that Change-2 is not intended to preempt or take the place of separate policy initiatives regarding specific decisions on appeal or future regulations. Future changes to the MSM may be released if the Coast Guard promulgates new regulations or issues appeal decisions, which may affect the guidance and information contained within the MSM.
This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Effective July 14, 2017.
Rhonda Lien, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-1540 or at
In FR Doc. 2017-11418 appearing on page 25538 in the
On page 25538, in the third column, in part 36, in amendment 2, the instruction “In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date “June 30, 2017” and add, in its place, the date “December 30, 2018” in the following places:” is corrected to read as “In 47 CFR part 36, remove the date “June 30, 2017” and add, in its place, the date “December 31, 2018” in the following places:”
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason retention limit adjustment.
NMFS is adjusting the commercial aggregated large coastal shark (LCS) and hammerhead shark management group retention limit for directed shark limited access permit holders in the Atlantic region from 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This action is based on consideration of the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason adjustments. The retention limit will remain at 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the Atlantic region through the rest of the 2017 fishing season or until NMFS announces via a document in the
This retention limit adjustment is effective on July 16, 2017 through December 31, 2017, or until NMFS announces via a document in the
Lauren Latchford, Guý DuBeck, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz 301-427-8503; fax 301-713-1917.
Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), its amendments, and implementing regulations (50 CFR part 635) issued under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
Atlantic shark fisheries have separate regional (Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic) quotas for all management groups except for the shark research fishery for LCS and sandbar sharks, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups. The boundary between the Gulf of Mexico region and the Atlantic region is defined at § 635.27(b)(1) as a line beginning on the East Coast of Florida at the mainland at 25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east. Any water and land to the north and east of that boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and setting of quotas, to be within the Atlantic region. This inseason action only affects the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region.
Under § 635.24(a)(8), NMFS may adjust the commercial retention limits in the shark fisheries during the fishing season. Before making any adjustment, NMFS must consider specified regulatory criteria and other relevant factors (see § 635.24(a)(8)(i) through (vi)). After considering these criteria as discussed below, NMFS has concluded that increasing the retention limit of the Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead management groups for directed shark limited access permit holders will allow use of available aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management group quotas and will provide fishermen throughout the Atlantic region equitable fishing opportunities for the rest of the year. Therefore, NMFS is increasing the commercial Atlantic aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark retention limit in the Atlantic region from 3 to 36 LCS other than sandbar shark per vessel per trip. Based on public comments NMFS received during the rulemaking for the 2017 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Season Rule (81 FR 84491; November 23, 2016), constituents preferred the historical retention limit of 36 LCS other than sandbars sharks per vessel per trip to the default retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbars sharks per vessel per trip, because they believed it would ensure the quota lasted longer and the fishing season could stay open later in the year.
NMFS considered the inseason retention limit adjustment criteria listed at § 635.24(a)(8)(i) through (vi), which includes (broken down by bullet points):
• The amount of remaining shark quota in the relevant area, region, or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports.
Based on dealer reports through June 16, 2017, 52.6 metric tons (mt) dressed weight (dw) (116,048 pounds (lb) dw), or 31 percent, of the 168.9 mt dw shark quota for aggregated LCS and 4.9 mt dw (10,836 lb dw), or 18 percent, of the 27.1 mt dw shark quota for the hammerhead management groups have been harvested in the Atlantic region. This means that approximately 69 percent of the aggregated LCS quota remains available and approximately 82 percent of the hammerhead shark quota remains available. NMFS took action previously this year to reduce retention rates, after considering the need for all regions to have an equitable opportunity to utilize the quota. Given the geographic distribution of the sharks at this time of year (
• The catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes in the region or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports.
Based on the current commercial retention limit and average catch rate of landings data from dealer reports, the amount of aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks harvested in the Atlantic region on a daily basis is low. Using current catch rates, projections indicate that landings would not reach 80 percent of the quota before the end of the 2017 fishing season (December 31, 2017). In other words, this daily average catch rate means that aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks are being harvested too slowly to promote fishing opportunities and ensure full utilization of the quota in the Atlantic region.
• Estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates.
Once the landings reach 80 percent of either the aggregated LCS or hammerhead shark quotas, NMFS would, as required by the regulations, close the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups since they are “linked quotas.” Current catch rates would likely result in the fisheries remaining open for the remainder of the year, but with the quotas being underutilized in the Atlantic region. The higher retention limit should help make it possible to more fully utilize the quota in the Atlantic region.
• Effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments.
Increasing the retention limit on the aggregated LCS and hammerhead management group in the Atlantic region from 3 to 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip would
• Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the relevant shark species based on scientific and fishery-based knowledge.
The directed shark fisheries in the Atlantic region exhibit a mixed species composition, with a high abundance of aggregated LCS caught in conjunction with hammerhead sharks. Migratory patterns of many LCS in the Atlantic region indicate the sharks move farther north in the summer and then return south in the fall. Increasing the retention limit in the Atlantic region at this time provides for fishing opportunities by fishermen farther north as the sharks are likely going to be in the northern areas of the region for only a short period of time before migrating south again. As a result, by increasing the harvest and landings on a per-trip basis, fishermen throughout the region will likely experience equitable fishing opportunities.
• Effects of catch rates in one part of a region or sub-region precluding vessels in another part of that region or sub-region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the relevant quota.
NMFS has previously provided notice to the regulated community (81 FR 84491; November 23, 2016, and 82 FR 17765; April 13, 2017) that a goal of this year's fishery is to ensure fishing opportunities throughout the fishing season and fishing region. While dealer reports indicate that, under current catch rates, the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region would remain open for the remainder of the year, the catch rates also indicate that the quotas would likely not be fully harvested under the current retention limit. If the harvest of these species is increased through an increased retention limit, NMFS estimates that the fishery would still remain open for the remainder of the year and fishermen throughout the Atlantic region would have a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the quota.
On November 23, 2016 (81 FR 84491), NMFS announced in a final rule that the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark fisheries management groups for the Atlantic region would open on January 1 with a quota of 168.9 mt dw (372,552 lb dw) and 27.1 mt dw (59,736 lb dw), respectively. We had published a proposed rule on August 29, 2016 (81 FR 59167) and accepted public comment. In the final rule, NMFS also announced that if it appeared that the quota is being harvested too quickly, thus precluding fishing opportunities throughout the entire region (
Accordingly, as of July 16, 2017, NMFS is increasing the retention limit for the commercial aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups in the Atlantic region for directed shark limited access permit holders from 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip to 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. This retention limit adjustment does not apply to directed shark limited access permit holders if the vessel is properly permitted to operate as a charter vessel or headboat for HMS and is engaged in a for-hire trip, in which case the recreational retention limits for sharks and “no sale” provisions apply (§ 635.22(a) and (c)); or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under § 635.32 and a NMFS-approved observer is onboard, in which case the restrictions noted on the shark research permit apply.
All other retention limits and shark fisheries in the Atlantic region remain unchanged. This retention limit will remain at 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for the rest of the 2017 fishing season, or until NMFS announces via a document in the
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to provide prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action for the following reasons:
Prior notice is impracticable because the regulatory criteria for inseason retention limit adjustments are intended to allow the agency to respond quickly to existing management considerations, including remaining available shark quotas, estimated dates for the fishery closures, the regional variations in the shark fisheries, and equitable fishing opportunities. Additionally, regulations implementing Amendment 6 of the 2006 Atlantic Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50074, August 18, 2015) intended that the LCS retention limit could be adjusted quickly throughout the fishing season to provide management flexibility for the shark fisheries and provide equitable fishing opportunities to fishermen throughout a region. Based on available shark quotas and informed by shark landings in previous seasons, responsive adjustment to the LCS commercial retention limit from the incidental level is warranted as quickly as possible to allow fishermen to take advantage of available quotas while sharks are present in their region. For such adjustment to be practicable, it must occur in a timeframe that allows fishermen to take advantage of it.
Adjustment of the LCS fisheries retention limit in the Atlantic region will begin on July 16, 2017. Prior notice would result in delays in increasing the retention limit and would adversely affect those shark fishermen that would otherwise have an opportunity to harvest more than the current retention limit of 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip and could result in low catch rates and underutilized quotas. Analysis of available data shows that adjustment of the LCS commercial retention limit upward to 36 would result in minimal risks of exceeding the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark quotas in the Atlantic region based on our consideration of previous years' data, in which the fisheries have opened in July. With quota available and with no measurable impacts to the stocks expected, it would be contrary to the public interest to require vessels to wait to harvest the sharks otherwise
This action is being taken under § 635.24(a)(2) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Department of State.
Request for comments.
As part of its implementation of Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” issued by the President on January 30, 2017, the Department of State (the Department) is seeking comments and information from interested parties to assist the Department in identifying existing regulations, paperwork requirements and other regulatory obligations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to achieve meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve the Department's statutory obligations.
Written comments and related material must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, 202-647-2318,
On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda. That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. We are seeking comments on Department regulations, guidance documents, and collections of information that you believe should be removed or modified to alleviate unnecessary burdens. The Department is also requesting economic data to support any proposed changes.
Executive Order 13777 directs agencies to designate a Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO) and to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF). The Deputy Secretary of State is the RRO. Other RRTF members include senior officials in the Department's primary regulatory bureaus (Bureaus of Consular Affairs, Educational and Cultural Affairs, Political-Military Affairs, and Administration), as well as other Department officials with expertise in legal requirements, planning and budget.
One of the duties of the RRTF is to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations to the Secretary regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. Executive Order 13777 further directs that the RRTF attempt to identify regulations that:
• Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
• Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
• Impose costs that exceed benefits;
• Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
• Are inconsistent with the requirements of section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note), or the guidance issued pursuant to that provision, in particular those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility; or
• Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially modified.
Section 3(e) of the Executive Order calls on the RRTF to “seek input and other assistance, as permitted by law, from entities significantly affected by Federal regulations, including State, local, and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, nongovernmental organizations, and trade associations” on regulations that meet some or all of the criteria above.
The Executive Orders are at the following sites:
Existing Department of State regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in two places:
• 22 CFR Chapter I (parts 1 through 199), which contains rules governing Department operations); and
• 48 CFR Chapter 6 (part 600), which contains the Department's Acquisition Rules.
You may view the most up-to-date versions of these regulations in the electronic CFR, located at
Department guidance that relates to the missions of the rulemaking bureaus (identified above) can be found in a number of locations on the
You are invited to provide comment on any guidance published by the Department that you feel should be considered for modification or elimination, in accordance with E.O. 13777.
The Department's most current submission to the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions is located at
You can find the Department's approved collections of information at
Please make your comments as specific as possible, and include any supporting data or other information, such as cost information, that you may have. Please note that all comments are publically available, so do not include any information in your comments that you would not want released to the public. We accept anonymous comments. The Department will not edit your comments to remove personal information; however, in our discretion, we might not post on
Although the Department will not respond to individual comments, we value your comments and will give careful consideration to them.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Geven S.p.A., Type D1-02 and D1-03 seat assemblies. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that seat belt attachment bolts were found detached or partially detached from the seat. This proposed AD would require inspection, torque verification, and modification of certain model seats. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this NPRM by August 28, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Geven Technical Assistance Department, Via Boscofangone, Zona Industriale Nola-Marigliano, 80035 Nola (NA), Italy; phone: +39 081 31 21 396; fax: +39 081 31 21 321; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Neil Doh, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2014-0187, dated August 20, 2014 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:
An operator reported that seat belt attachment bolts were found detached or partially detached from the seat. A further check on several aeroplanes revealed that on a large number of seats of the same model, the seat belt attachment bolts were not properly torqued and secured as defined. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to failure of the seats to perform their intended function, possibly resulting in injury to occupants in case of an emergency landing. To address this potential unsafe condition, Geven published SB No. D103-25-004 to provide inspection instructions to verify if the seat belt attachment bolts are properly torqued and secured, and correction of any deficiencies. In addition, for certain D1-03 seats, the SB provides instructions to modify the seat belt attachment assembly. For the reasons described above, this AD requires a one-time inspection of all safety belt attachment bolts and, depending on findings, accomplishment of the applicable corrective action(s). This AD also requires modification of the seat belt attachment assembly on certain D1-03 seats.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Geven S.p.A. has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016. The SB describes procedures for inspection, torque verification, and modification of certain model seats known to be installed on ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes. 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 Italy, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require inspection, torque verification and modification of certain model seats.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects an unknown number of seat assemblies installed on, but not limited to, 38 ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all GEVEN S.p.A. (Geven) Type D1-02 and D1-03 (also known as “Lightweight Classic” and “Lightweight Prestige”) seats, with part numbers (P/Ns) and Effectivity Codes listed in Table 1.1.1 of Geven Service Bulletin (SB) No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016.
These appliances are installed on, but not limited to, ATR 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 2500 Code, Cabin Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that seat belt attachment bolts were found detached or partially detached from the seat. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the seats.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For all Geven Type D1-02 and D1-03 (also known as “Lightweight Classic” and “Lightweight Prestige”) in-arm table, standard, and last row seats, P/N D1-02-( )( )( )-( )( )( ), and P/N D1-03-( )( )( )-( )( )( ), within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the safety belt attachment assemblies on the aisle side spreader, and torque check the safety belt attachment assemblies on the central and fuselage side spreaders to 71 in-lbs (8 nm)
(2) For all Geven Type D1-02 and D1-03 (also known as “Lightweight Classic” and “Lightweight Prestige”) aft facing seats, P/N D1-02-( )( )( )-( )( )( ), and P/N D1-03-( )( )( )-( )( )( ), within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, torque check the seat belt attachment assemblies on the aisle side, central, and fuselage side spreaders to 71 in-lbs using Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016, and
(3) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, verify that the safety belt attachment is free to rotate. If it is not free to rotate, replace the bushing in accordance with paragraph 3.3.1 of Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016, or
(4) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, block each affected seat to prevent use of each affected seat until paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) of this AD are accomplished.
You may take credit for the inspections, torque verifications, and modifications that are required by paragraphs (f)(1), (2), and (3) of this AD if you performed those actions before the effective date of this AD using Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016.
The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Neil Doh, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7757; fax: 781-238-7199; email:
(2) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2014-0187, dated August 20, 2014, for more information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
(3) Geven SB No. D103-25-004, Revision 4, dated March 15, 2016 can be obtained from Geven Technical Assistance Department, using the contact information in paragraph (i)(4) of this proposed AD.
(4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Geven Technical Assistance Department, Via Boscofangone, Zona Industriale Nola-Marigliano, 80035 Nola (NA), Italy; phone: +39 081 31 21 396; fax: +39 081 31 21 321; email:
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening of comment period.
We are revising an earlier proposal for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. This action revises the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) by adding certain airplanes to the applicability and adding specified actions. We are proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these changes increase the scope of the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these proposed changes.
The comment period for the NPRM published in the
We must receive comments on this SNPRM by August 28, 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 proposed 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
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Cesar Gomez, 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 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The
Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that certain airplanes were inadvertently omitted from the applicability of the NPRM; and additional actions were necessary.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-07R2, dated December 14, 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-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:
During endurance and impulse testing of the spoiler PCU, cracks were discovered on two test spoiler PCU manifolds. Investigation determined that the crack initiation was due to the heat treat process. A cracked spoiler PCU manifold could cause the loss of one of the two hydraulic systems, resulting in the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems. This condition, if not corrected, could adversely affect the continued safe operation and landing of the aeroplane.
This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of the affected spoiler PCUs.
Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to extend the applicability to include additional aeroplane serial numbers and also modify the Corrective Actions to specifically mandate section 3.B of the [Service Bulletin] SB 84-27-64, Revision A.
Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD was issued to correct the SB referenced in the Background section. SB 84-27-64, Revision A should have been referenced in lieu of SB 84-27-63, Revision A.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacement of affected spoiler PCU manifolds.
Parker-Hannifin Corporation has issued Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, dated April 13, 2016. This service bulletin identifies affected spoiler PCUs that need to be returned to Parker Customer Support for rework.
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 considered the comment received.
Horizon Air requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (in the NPRM) be revised to remove the requirement for job set-up and close-out in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014. Horizon Air stated that performing the job set-up and close-out sections specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014, as a requirement of the AD, restricts an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with incorporating Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014.
We agree that job set-up and close-out may be done using approved procedures other than those provided in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014, or Revision A, dated July 26, 2016. Therefore, access and close would not be specifically required by this proposed AD. We have revised paragraph (g) of this proposed AD (in the SNPRM) to require only the actions specified in paragraph 3.B. in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016. We find that this change adequately addresses the commenter's request.
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.
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 82 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The new requirements of this proposed AD add no additional economic burden.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
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 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to the following Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001, and 4003 through 4527 inclusive, equipped with spoiler power control unit (PCU) part numbers (P/Ns) 390700-1007 and -1009 and that have any serial number identified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this AD.
(1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive;
(2) S/Ns identified in the Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, section 4. Appendix, dated April 13, 2016; and
(3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Control System.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of cracking on two test spoiler PCU manifolds during testing by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the spoiler PCUs that could lead to the loss of multiple flight controls and landing gear systems.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 12,000 flight hours or 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Remove and replace the affected spoiler PCUs in accordance with paragraph 3.B. in the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-27-64, Revision A, dated July 26, 2016.
After the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, no person may install, on any airplane, a spoiler PCU, part number 390700-1007 and -1009, with:
(1) S/Ns 0474 through 1321 inclusive;
(2) S/Ns identified in the Parker Service Bulletin 390700-27-002, Revision 1, section 4. Appendix, dated April 13, 2016; and
(3) S/Ns 1394 through 1876 inclusive, without suffix “A.”
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 84-27-64, dated July 15, 2014.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2015-07R2, dated December 14, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For further information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, 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 516-228-7318; fax 516-794-5531; email:
(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 certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that fuselage panels were manufactured with
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 28, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. 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 2016-0250, dated December 15, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:
A few pockets of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were manufactured with defects in certain chemically-milled profiles. The technical investigation concluded that the fatigue limit of the affected panels might be reduced, depending on the defect characteristics.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DA published Service Bulletin (SB) F7X-042 providing inspection instructions.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of the chemically-milled profiles of the pockets of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires, for some aeroplanes, the installation of a stiffener on the forward pocket.
Applicable corrective actions include repair, if necessary. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016. This service information describes the inspection of the chemically milled profiles of the pockets of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels and the installation of a stiffener on the forward pocket on affected airplanes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 2 through 19 inclusive, except S/Ns 3 and 8.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 51, Structure.
This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a few pockets of fuselage Section T5 lateral panels were manufactured with defects that could reduce the fatigue limit of the affected panels. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of certain fuselage lateral panels, which could lead to crack propagation and possible reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection to measure the pocket depth of the Section T5 fuselage lateral panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.
During the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if any discrepancy is found, as defined in Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016, before further flight, contact the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA) for approved repair instructions, and, within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish the repair accordingly.
For airplanes having S/Ns 16, 17, and 19: Within 99 months or 4,100 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, install a stiffener on the forward pocket of Section T5 fuselage lateral panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, Revision 1, dated May 3, 2016.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-042, dated January 3, 2011.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0250, dated December 15, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1137; fax (425) 227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-25-07 for Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. AD 2009-25-07 currently requires amending the rotorcraft flight manual supplement (RFMS) and pre-flight checking the emergency flotation gear before each flight over water. Since we issued AD 2009-25-07, Airbus Helicopters developed a terminating action and identified an additional part-numbered emergency floatation gear part with the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2009-25-07, expand the applicability, and add a terminating action for the repetitive inspections. The actions of this proposed AD are intended to correct the unsafe condition on these helicopters.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 12, 2017.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
On November 18, 2009, we issued AD 2009-25-07, Amendment 39-16126 (74 FR 65682, December 11, 2009) for Eurocopter France (now Airbus Helicopters) Model EC120B helicopters with an Emergency Floatation Gear lighting and ancillary control unit (LACU), part number (P/N) 040101AB, installed. AD 2009-25-07 requires amending the Limitations section of the RFMS to prohibit flight over water if the “float arm” pushbutton does not remain lit, conducting a pilot check to determine whether the “float arm” pushbutton remains lit before any flight over water, and placarding the “float arm” pushbutton as inoperative if the functional check is unsuccessful.
AD 2009-25-07 was prompted by AD No. 2008-0177-E, dated September 19, 2008 (AD 2008-0177-E), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Model EC120B helicopters. EASA advises that operators reported reliability issues with the LACU emergency flotation “float arm” latching pushbuttons, used to arm the emergency flotation gear, including failure of the light to illuminate properly. AD 2008-0177-E states the unsafe condition may be due to the bonding of the pushbuttons and requires a repetitive, in-flight functional test of the float arm pushbutton before flight overwater. AD 2008-0177-E further prohibits overwater flight if the pushbutton fails to latch in the depressed position. Those actions are intended to prohibit flight over water if a functional test indicates that the emergency flotation gear cannot be armed, which would preclude deployment of the floats in an emergency water ditching, resulting in subsequent damage to the helicopter and injury to occupants.
Since we issued AD 2009-25-07, EASA has issued AD No. 2016-0180, dated September 13, 2016 (AD 2016-0180), which superseded AD 2008-0177-E. EASA advises that Airbus Helicopters has designed an improved latching pushbutton, which when installed becomes a terminating action for the repetitive functional checks of the float arm pushbuttons. EASA also states that LACU P/N 040101BA is equipped with the same faulty pushbutton and must be included in the applicability.
We have also determined that the “Emergency Floatation Gear LACU” as identified in AD 2009-25-07 is more correctly described as an LACU. Therefore we use the term “LACU” in this proposed AD.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A007, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2016 (EASB), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC120B helicopters. The EASB describes procedures for a pre-flight check of the float arm pushbutton while arming the emergency flotation gear and prohibits operators from flight over water if the float arm pushbutton fails.
We also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC120-31A008, dated June 30, 2016 (ASB), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC 120B helicopters. The ASB describes procedures for replacing the float arm pushbutton with a new design pushbutton and for re-labeling the modified LACU with a new P/N label.
This proposed AD would retain the RFMS amendment and repetitive functional check requirements of AD 2009-25-07. This proposed AD would add LACU P/N 040101BA to the applicability paragraph, require replacing the float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A with float arm pushbutton P/N 304-2500-00 within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS), and prohibit installing float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A on any helicopter. Replacing the float arm pushbutton would be a terminating action for the repetitive functional checks prior to flight overwater.
An owner/operator (pilot) may perform the functional check required by this AD and must enter compliance with that paragraph into the helicopter maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot may perform this check because it involves only a functional check to determine whether the emergency flotation gear has been armed and can be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This check is an exception to our standard maintenance regulations.
This proposed AD would also revise the term “emergency flotation gear lighting and ancillary control unit” in the applicability paragraph to “lighting and ancillary control unit” for technical accuracy.
The EASA AD requires installing the LACU float arm pushbutton within 13 months; the proposed AD would require the installation within 300 hours TIS.
We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 53 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. At an average labor rate of $85 per hour, the cost of revising the limitations section of the RFMS and of the pre-flight functional check is negligible. Replacing the float arm pushbutton would require about 2 work-hours, and required parts would cost about $311, for a cost per helicopter of $481 and a total cost of $25,493 to the U.S. fleet.
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, 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 to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.
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.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter France) Model EC120B helicopters, certificated in any category, with a Lighting and Ancillary Control Unit (LACU) part-number (P/N) 040101AB or 040101BA with a float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A installed.
This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a “float arm” pushbutton, which could result in inoperative floats being used in an emergency water ditching, causing damage to the helicopter or injury to occupants.
This AD supersedes AD 2009-25-07, Amendment 39-16126 (74 FR 65682, December 11, 2009).
We must receive comments by September 12, 2017.
You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.
(1) Before further flight, amend the EC120B Rotorcraft Flight Manual Supplement (RFMS) for the emergency flotation gear Aerazur, by inserting a copy of this AD into the Limitations section of the RFMS or by making pen and ink changes to that section to add the information in figure 1 to paragraph (f)(1) of this AD:
(2) Before each flight over water:
(i) Perform a functional check to determine whether flight over water is permitted under the Limitations section in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. For purposes of this AD, “flight over water” means flight beyond the power-off gliding distance from shore. “Shore” is an area of land adjacent to the water and above the high water mark but does not include land area that is intermittently under water. The actions required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate, and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(ii) If the LACU fails the functional check required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this AD, place a placard over the “float arm” pushbutton that reads “INOP.”
(3) Within 300 hours time-in-service, replace float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A with float arm pushbutton P/N 304-2500-00. Installing float arm pushbutton P/N 304-2500-00 is terminating action for the functional check and placard required by paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(4) Do not install float arm pushbutton P/N 045004A111A on any helicopter.
(1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
(2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.
(1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 04A007, Revision 1, dated June 30, 2016, and Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. EC120-31A008, dated June 30, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at
(2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0180, dated September 13, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2560 Emergency Equipment.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-18-16, for certain Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. AD 2009-18-16 requires an inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes on certain frames, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and modification of certain fastener holes. Since we issued AD 2009-18-16, an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicated that the compliance times should be reduced. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 28, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2125; fax 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, widespread fatigue damage (WFD) will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions.
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
On August 24, 2009, we issued AD 2009-18-16, Amendment 39-16012 (74 FR 46342, September 9, 2009) (“AD 2009-18-16”), for certain Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. AD 2009-18-16 was prompted by an identification of a structural modification that falls within the scope of the work related to the extension of the service life of the affected airplanes and widespread fatigue damage evaluations. AD 2009-18-16 requires inspecting by rotating probe for cracking of fastener holes H1 through H29 on frames (FRs) 43 through 46 inclusive, and inspecting fastener holes H1 through H29 on FRs 43 through 46 inclusive, to determine the edge distance of the fastener hole, and corrective actions if necessary. We issued AD 2009-18-16 to prevent fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.
Since we issued AD 2009-18-16, the manufacturer has conducted a new investigation as part of the WFD program and determined that the compliance times must be reduced. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2016-0197, dated October 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), for all Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. EASA AD 2016-0197 supersedes EASA AD 2008-0212, dated December 4, 2008. EASA AD 2008-0212 was the MCAI referred to in FAA AD 2009-18-16. The new MCAI states:
Within the scope of work related to the extension of the service life of A310 design and widespread fatigue damage evaluations, DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD F-2005-078 (EASA approval 2005-3957) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2006-02-06, Amendment 39-14458 (71 FR 3214, January 20, 2006)] to require a structural modification, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-53-2124 (Airbus modification 13023), to increase the service life of junctions of center box upper frame bases to upper fuselage arches.
The threshold timescales for accomplishment of the tasks as defined in SB A310-53-2124 were refined and reduced. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2007-0238 to require compliance with Revision 01 of SB
Consequently, [EASA] AD 2007-0238 was revised to exclude reference to Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 01 and to require accomplishment of the task(s) as described in the original SB A310-53-2124 instead, although retaining the reduced compliance times introduced by [EASA] AD 2007-0238 at original issue.
EASA AD 2008-0212, superseding [EASA] AD 2007-0238R1, was published to refer to Airbus SB A310 53-2124 Revision 02, the corrected version that was used to meet the requirements of this [EASA] AD.
Since [EASA] AD 2008-0212 was issued, new investigations in the frame of the Widespread Fatigue Damage campaign induced thresholds reduction, and Airbus issued SB A310-53-2124 Revision 03.
For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2008-0212, which is superseded, and requires accomplishment of modification(s) within reduced compliance time, as published in Airbus SB A310-53-2124 Revision 03.
Required actions include a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of certain fastener holes on certain frames, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary; and modification of certain fastener holes. Related investigative actions include an additional HFEC rotating probe inspection for cracking of fastener holes and a check to determine the edge distance of certain holes. Corrective actions include ream out of cracks and repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014. The service information describes procedures for a rototest inspection for cracking between FR 43 through FR 46 on the center box, and the cold expansion (modification) of the most fatigue sensitive fastener holes. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
There is a difference between this NPRM and the MCAI regarding how the compliance times are stated for the accomplishment of the inspection and modification specified in paragraph (j) of this proposed AD. The MCAI states that the accomplishment of the inspection and modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124 should be accomplished no later than 6 months (estimated by projection of airplane usage) prior to the thresholds specified in the MCAI. Paragraph (j) of this proposed AD specifies that the accomplishment of the inspection and modification should be done “at the applicable thresholds specified in table 3 to the introductory text of paragraph (j) of this AD.” The compliance times specified in table 3 to the introductory text of paragraph (j) of this proposed AD are based upon the average annual utilization of the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraph (c) of this proposed AD. Based on this information, we calculated that within 6 months an Airbus Model A310 series airplane would have accumulated an average of 300 flight cycles and 978 flight hours.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it would take about 41 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $20,180 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $189,320, or $23,665 per product.
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions (
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by August 28, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2009-18-16, Amendment 39-16012 (74 FR 46342, September 9, 2009) (“AD 2009-18-16”).
This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324 and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial numbers.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the junctions of center box upper frame bases to the upper fuselage arches are subject to widespread fatigue damage and that the compliance threshold for the modification in AD 2009-18-16 should be reduced. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the frame foot run-outs, which could lead to rupture of the frame foot and cracking in adjacent frames and skin, and which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except for airplanes modified before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124: At the times specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD but no later than the times specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) rotating probe inspection for cracking of fastener holes H1 through H29 on frames 43 through 46, and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. If no cracking is found and the edge distance of the fastener hole is equal to or greater than the distance specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, before further flight, do the modification (cold expansion) of the affected fastener holes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
(1) Inspect at the applicable time specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. To establish the average flight time (AFT), take the accumulated flight time (counted from the take-off up to the landing) and divide by the number of accumulated flight cycles. This gives the AFT per flight cycle.
(2) Inspect at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
(i) At the applicable time indicated in table 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this AD. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an AFT equal to or less than 3.17 flight hours are short range airplanes. Airbus Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes with an AFT exceeding 3.17 flight hours are long range airplanes. For this paragraph, to establish the average flight time, take the accumulated flight time (counted from the take-off up to the landing) and divide by the number of accumulated flight cycles. This provides the AFT per flight cycle.
(ii) Within 500 flight cycles or 800 flight hours after October 14, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-18-16), whichever occurs first.
Where Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 03, dated December 22, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for appropriate action, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance): Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in
For airplanes modified before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 01, dated May 3, 2007: Unless already accomplished, before further flight, do applicable corrective actions using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
Except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable: At the applicable thresholds specified in table 3 to the introductory text of paragraph (j) of this AD, contact the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA for additional inspection and modification instructions. Accomplish those instructions within the compliance times provided by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.
(1) For Model A310-203, -204, -221, and -222 airplanes: No additional inspection is required if the inspection and modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124 was done after the accumulation of 29,500 flight cycles and 70,900 flight hours since the first flight of the airplane.
(2) For Model A310-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes: No additional inspection is required if the inspection and modification specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124 was done after the accumulation of 22,600 flight cycles and 69,400 flight hours since the first flight of the airplane.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, dated April 4, 2005; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2124, Revision 02, dated May 22, 2008.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0197, dated October 5, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of corrosion in the aft fuselage. This proposed AD would require a one-time review of the operator's maintenance procedures, repetitive detailed internal and external inspections for corrosion or cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. This proposed AD would also include an optional terminating action for the inspections. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 28, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We have received reports indicating extensive corrosion was found in the lower left side of the aft fuselage, between station 1790 and station 2033.5, from stringer S-34L to stringer S-49R. On several airplanes, additional corrosion was found after initial repairs were made to adjacent areas. This corrosion was caused by a failure to fully clean and neutralize spills or leaks of acidic or corrosive contents from the vacuum waste system. Vacuum waste system residue on the structure or in insulation blankets becomes reactivated with moisture that develops during flight, causing additional corrosion. Untreated spills can allow the breakdown of protective finishes and accelerate the corrosion reaction rate. This condition, if not corrected, could cause fatigue cracks, which could result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity.
We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017. The service information describes procedures for a one-time review of the operator's maintenance procedures, repetitive detailed internal and external inspections for corrosion or cracking, cleaning and neutralization of the internal inspection area (an optional terminating action), and applicable on-condition actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 161 airplanes of U.S. registry. The cost to review an operator's maintenance program varies depending on the operator's recordkeeping system and fleet size. We estimate the following costs to comply with the remaining actions of this proposed AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in 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 28, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of extensive corrosion in the aft fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct untreated vacuum waste system spills, which could cause corrosion of the airplane structure, which could lead to fatigue cracks, and could ultimately result in rapid decompression and loss of structural integrity.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017.
(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, uses the phrase “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD, the phrase “after the effective date of this AD” must be used.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, specifies contacting Boeing, and specifies that action as RC: This AD requires using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Accomplishment of “PART 5: CLEANING AND NEUTRALIZATION,” as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-53A0083, dated April 20, 2017, terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) Except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Lin, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6412; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking TSAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 2, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider TSAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 2, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
You must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Written comments may also be submitted using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Lieutenant Commander William Nabach, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee, telephone (202) 372-1386, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to TSAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. TSAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
TSAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Committee should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 2, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking MERPAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 8, 2017 to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider MERPAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 8, 2017, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee, (202) 372-1128, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to MERPAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. MERPAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
MERPAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Committee should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 8, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Merchant Marine Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MEDMAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking MEDMAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 9, 2015, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider MEDMAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 9, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Lieutenant Junior Grade James Fortin, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee, (202) 372-1128, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to MEDMAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. MEDMAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
MEDMAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Committee should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 9, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC); notice of teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking NOSAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 3, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast Guard will consider NOSAC recommendations as part of the process of identifying regulations, guidance, and collections of information to be repealed, replaced, or modified pursuant to the three Executive Orders discussed above.
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 3, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
You must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Written comments may also be submitted using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Mr. Patrick Clark, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, telephone (202) 372-1358, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to NOSAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. NOSAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
NOSAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as applicable, for each recommendation. If the data is not readily available, the Committee should include information as to how such information can be obtained either by the Committee or directly by the Coast Guard.
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 3, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of new task assignment for the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC); teleconference meeting.
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). The U.S. Coast Guard is asking CTAC to help the agency identify existing regulations, guidance, and collections of information (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) for possible repeal, replacement, or modification. This tasking is in response to the issuance of Executive Orders 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs; 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda;” and 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 2, 2017, to discuss this tasking. This teleconference will be open to the public. The U.S. Coast
The full Committee is scheduled to meet by teleconference on August 2, 2017, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. EDT. Please note that this teleconference may adjourn early if the Committee has completed its business.
To join the teleconference or to request special accommodations, contact the individual listed in the
Lieutenant Jake Lobb, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, (202) 372-1428, or email
The U.S. Coast Guard is issuing a new task to CTAC to provide recommendations on whether existing regulations, guidance, and information collections (that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter) should be repealed, replaced, or modified. CTAC will then provide advice and recommendations on the assigned task and submit a final recommendation report to the U.S. Coast Guard.
On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.” Under that Executive Order, for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations must be identified for elimination, and the cost of planned regulations must be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process. On February 24, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.” That Executive Order directs agencies to take specific steps to identify and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. On March 28, 2017, the President issued Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth.” Executive Order 13783 promotes the clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding agency actions that unnecessarily encumber energy production.
When implementing the regulatory offsets required by Executive Order 13771, each agency head is directed to prioritize, to the extent permitted by law, those regulations that the agency's Regulatory Reform Task Force identifies as outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective in accordance with Executive Order 13777. As part of this process to comply with all three Executive Orders, the U.S. Coast Guard is reaching out through multiple avenues to interested individuals to gather their input about what regulations, guidance, and information collections, they believe may need to be repealed, replaced, or modified. On June 8, 2017, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a general notice in the
CTAC is tasked to:
Provide input to the U.S. Coast Guard on all existing regulations, guidance, and information collections that fall within the scope of the Committee's charter.
1. One or more subcommittees/working groups, as needed, will be established to work on this tasking in accordance with the Committee charter and bylaws. The subcommittee(s) shall terminate upon the approval and submission of a final recommendation to the U.S. Coast Guard from the parent Committee.
2. Review regulations, guidance, and information collections and provide recommendations whether an existing rule, guidance, or information collection should be repealed, replaced or modified. If the Committee recommends modification, please provide specific recommendations for how the regulation, guidance, or information collection should be modified. Recommendations should include an explanation on how and to what extent repeal, replacement or modification will reduce costs or burdens to industry and the extent to which risks to health or safety would likely increase.
a. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of burden on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing administrative burdens on the industry.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing burdens in the development or use of domestically produced energy resources. “Burden,” for the purposes of compliance with Executive Order 13783, means “to unnecessarily obstruct, delay, curtail, or otherwise impose significant costs on the siting, permitting, production, utilization, transmission, or delivery of energy resources.”
b. Identify regulations, guidance, or information collections that potentially impose the following types of costs on the industry:
i. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs that are outdated (such as due to technological advancement), or are no longer necessary.
ii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs which are no longer enforced as written or which are ineffective.
iii. Regulations, guidance, or information collections imposing costs tied to reporting or recordkeeping requirements that impose burdens that exceed benefits. Explain why the reporting or recordkeeping requirement is overly burdensome, unnecessary, or how it could be modified.
c. Identify regulations, guidance, and information collections that the Committee believes have led to the elimination of jobs or inhibits job creation within a particular industry.
3. All regulations, guidance, and information collections, or parts thereof, recommended by the Committee should be described in sufficient detail (by section, paragraph, sentence, clause, etc.) so that it can readily be identified. Data (quantitative or qualitative) should be provided to support and illustrate the impact, cost, or burden, as
All meetings associated with this tasking, both full Committee meetings and subcommittee/working groups, are open to the public. A public oral comment period will be held during the August 2, 2017, teleconference. Public comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated Federal Officer; commenters are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please contact the individual listed in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on August 20, 2013, and on June 29, 2017. The submittals revise the portions of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) that pertain to offset requirements in Davis and Salt Lake Counties for major sources. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) (Act).
Written comments must be received on or before August 14, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0620 at
Kevin Leone, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6227,
a.
b.
i. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
ii. Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
On August 20, 2013, with supporting administrative documentation submitted on September 12, 2013, Utah sent the EPA revisions to their nonattainment permitting regulations, specifically to address EPA identified deficiencies in their nonattainment permitting regulations that affected the EPA's ability to approve Utah's PM
On February 3, 2017, the EPA published a final rulemaking (82 FR 9138) to conditionally approve the revisions in Utah's August 20, 2013 submittal, except for the revisions to R307-420. The submittal did not contain the appropriate supporting documentation required for the EPA to take action on R307-420. As a result, the EPA requested an extension for taking action on R307-420, and on December 20, 2016, the EPA was
The EPA is proposing to approve Utah's revisions to R307-420 and R307-403-6, as submitted on August 20, 2013, and June 29, 2017. R307-420 maintains the offset provisions of the nonattainment area new source review (NNSR) permitting program in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after the area is re-designated to attainment for ozone. R307-420 also establishes more stringent offset requirements for nitrogen oxides that may be triggered as a contingency measure under Utah's ozone maintenance plan. R307-420 was also modified to include the definitions and applicability provisions of R307-403 (Permits: New and Modified Sources in Nonattainment Areas and Maintenance Areas) to ensure that the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-420 are consistent with related permitting rules in R307-403. Finally, the revisions to R307-403-6 reflect the move of the maintenance offset provisions from R307-403 to R307-420. The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions after determining that these revisions are in compliance with federal statutes and regulations.
The EPA first approved the offset provisions for maintenance of the ozone standards in Salt Lake and Davis Counties on May 5, 1995 (60 FR 22277), as part of an action on a Utah submittal updating the NNSR program. At that time, the offset provisions were in R307-1-3.3.3.C. R307-1-3.3.3.C applied an offset ratio of 1.15:1 for new major sources and major modifications in any ozone nonattainment area, but also in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after redesignation to attainment. See 60 FR 22280/3. The submittal, in R307-1-3.1.10, also applied alternative siting analysis requirements to apply to new major sources and major modifications in Salt Lake and Davis Counties after redesignation.
On July 17, 1997 (62 FR 38213), the EPA approved Utah's maintenance plan and redesignation request for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. As part of that action, we approved a revision to R307-1-3.3.3.C that added a contingency measure for Salt Lake and Davis Counties. 62 FR 38215/2. The contingency measure, if triggered, would increase the offset ratio to 1.2:1. 62 FR 28406/1 (May 23, 1997) (proposal).
Subsequently, Utah undertook a complete recodification of their air rules. The NNSR rules in R307-1-3, including the ozone maintenance provisions, were moved to R307-403. The offset and contingency measure provisions in R307-1-3.3.3.C were moved to R307-403-6, and the alternative siting analysis requirements were moved to R307-403-8. The EPA approved most of the recodification, including all of R307-403, on February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679).
The alternative siting analysis requirements in R307-403-8 were subsequently moved to R307-401-19, approved by the EPA on February 6, 2014 (79 FR 7072), and then again to R307-403-10, approved by the EPA on February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9138) as part of the action discussed above. This portion of the SIP is up to date with all Utah rule revisions and submittals.
Separately, in 1999 Utah moved the ozone maintenance plan provisions for Salt Lake and Davis Counties (
Then, on August 20, 2013, Utah submitted revisions to the definitions in the NNSR program that addressed certain deficiencies. Utah also submitted revisions to the corresponding definitions in R307-420. As the EPA had not received the 1999 rulemaking that created R307-420 as a SIP submittal, we were unable to take action on the revisions to R307-420.
Utah's June 29, 2017 submittal addresses this issue by submitting the 1999 rule revisions that created R307-420 and modified R307-403-6. As these rule revisions preserve the ozone maintenance plan requirements for offsets and contingency measures in Salt Lake and Davis Counties while improving the clarity of those requirements, we propose to approve the revisions.
We also propose to approve the subsequent revisions to R307-420, submitted on August 20, 2013, that Utah promulgated to ensure that the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-420 are consistent with related permitting rules in R307-403. For the reasons explained in our February 3, 2017 notice, the definitions and applicability provisions in R307-403 are consistent with requirements for NNSR programs found in 40 CFR 51.165. While R307-420 is part of the ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties and not part of the NNSR program, and therefore not directly subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 51.165, we view the corresponding revisions to the definitions and applicability provisions as strengthening the maintenance plan.
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the UDAQ rules promulgated in the DAR, R307-400 Series as discussed in section III of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
• does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide 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).
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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Samsung Austin Semiconductor (Samsung) to exclude (or delist) the sludge generated from the electroplating process from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) Version 3.0.47 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and the environment.
We will accept comments until August 14, 2017. We will stamp comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These late comments may or may not be considered in formulating a final decision. Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-2017-0254, at
For technical information regarding the Samsung Austin Semiconductor petition, contact Michelle Peace at 214-665-7430 or by email at
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 31, 2017. The request must contain the information described in § 260.20(d).
Samsung submitted a petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of parts 260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste on a “generator specific” basis from the hazardous waste lists.
EPA bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner. This decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, EPA would conclude that Samsung's petitioned waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. EPA would also conclude that Samsung's process minimizes short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the environment.
The information in this section is organized as follows:
EPA is proposing to approve the delisting petition submitted by Samsung to have the Copper filter cake excluded, or delisted from the definition of a hazardous waste. The Copper filter cake is listed as F006, wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations. The basis of the listing is cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, and cyanide (complexed).
Samsung's petition requests an exclusion from the F006 waste listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Samsung does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Samsung also believes no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4)(hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In making the initial delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing criteria and factors cited in §§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed decision to delist waste from Samsung is based on the information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes and analytical data from the Austin, Texas facility.
If the copper filter cake is delisted, contingent upon approval of the delisting petition, storage containers with copper filter cake will be transported to an authorized, solid waste landfill (
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide a notice and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion until it addresses all timely public comments (including those at public hearings, if any) on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1) at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective in less than six months when the regulated facility does not need the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes.
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program. If Samsung transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in any state with delisting authorization, Samsung must obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-hazardous in the state.
EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has amended this list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) The wastes typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3), or (b) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment, storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which therefore become hazardous under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the “mixture” or “derived-from” rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in these regulations or resulting from the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions EPA because it does not consider the wastes hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See part 261 and the background documents for the listed waste.)
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if EPA has “delisted” the waste.
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See § 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
In November 2015, Samsung petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, filter cake (F006) generated from its facility located in Austin, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to §§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically, in its petition, Samsung requested that EPA grant a conditional exclusion for 750 cubic yards of F006 filter cake.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor (SAS) operates a semiconductor manufacturing facility located at 12100 Samsung Blvd. in Austin, Texas. SAS manufactures semiconductors used in logic chips for various applications, including cellular phones and tablet PCs. The SAS facility consists of two wafer manufacturing operations. The Main Fab, Mod 1 area was constructed in June 2007 as a 300 mm NANO Flash Fab. The Fab that was constructed in 1998 was decommissioned and subsequently upgraded to convert it from a trailing-edge DRAM Fab to a copper back end of the line (BEOL) Fab for the support of the adjacent Main Fab operations (CuFab). The integrated SAS operations are capable of manufacturing 3X NANO technology and copper interconnects. In addition, the Main Fab, Mod 2 area was constructed in May 2011 to manufacture 45X Nanotechnology for logic chips for various applications.
Since 2007, SAS's manufacturing process has used copper during wafer fabrication to enhance electron migration and reduce the width of the circuitry of the microprocessors. The copper application is performed in a copper metallization process, in which copper is applied to the wafer in an electroplating operation. Electric current is applied to copper anodes in an acidic bath to deposit a microscopic layer of copper on selected portions of the wafer. Following the electroplating operation, wafers go through a second bath prior to entering the etching step. The etching step is performed to clean the edges of the wafer. Silica slurry is then used to flatten the surface of the wafer. Wastewater from these processes is treated in the copper wastewater (CuWW) treatment system that is part of the plant's industrial wastewater treatment (IWT) system. Sludge generated in the CuWW treatment system is collected in a tank that feeds a plate and frame filter press. The sludge that is processed in the filter press generates a filter cake which falls from the filter press into a roll-off for storage onsite in a less than 90-day waste storage unit. The filter cake is transported off-site to a hazardous waste landfill for disposal.
To support its petition, Samsung submitted: Historical information on waste generation and management practices; and analytical results from eight samples for total and TCLP concentrations of compounds of concern (COC)s.
EPA believes that the descriptions of the Samsung analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Samsung's petition for an exclusion of the filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show the filter cake is non-hazardous. Analytical data for the filter cake samples were used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The data summaries for COCs are presented in Table I. EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Samsung and has determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the filter cake. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Samsung's waste are presently below health-based levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully demonstrated that the copper filter cake is non-hazardous.
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a surface impoundment, and that a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations and ensures that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways (
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit the fate and transport model evaluates.
The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no constituents of concern tested are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products in Samsung waste.
EPA concluded, after reviewing Samsung's processes that no other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction
During the evaluation of Samsung's petition, EPA also considered the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes (
The descriptions of Samsung's hazardous waste process and analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations (see Table I). EPA believes that Samsung's Filter cake sludge will not impose any threat to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes Samsung should be granted an exclusion for the Filter cake sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition show Samsung's Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous. The data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Samsung's waste is presently below the compliance point concentrations used in the delisting decision and would not pose a substantial hazard to the environment. EPA believes that Samsung has successfully demonstrated that the Filter cake sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Samsung in Austin, Texas, for the copper filter cake described in its petition. EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of the copper filter cake.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
The petitioner, Samsung, must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX, Table 1. The text below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
This paragraph provides the levels of constituents for which Samsung must test the Copper filter cake, below which these wastes would be considered non-hazardous. EPA selected the set of inorganic and organic constituents specified in paragraph (1) of 40 CFR part 261, appendix IX, table 1, (the exclusion language) based on information in the petition. EPA compiled the inorganic and organic constituents list from the composition of the waste, descriptions of Samsung's treatment process, previous test data provided for the waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting decision-making. These delisting levels correspond to the allowable levels measured in the TCLP concentrations.
The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that Samsung manages and disposes of any Copper Filter cake that contains hazardous levels of inorganic and organic constituents according to Subtitle C of RCRA. Managing the copper filter cake as a hazardous waste until the verification testing is performed will protect against improper handling of hazardous material. If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for in the petition, the exclusion will not cover the petitioned waste. The exclusion is effective upon publication in the
Samsung must complete a rigorous verification testing program on the filter cake to assure that the solids do not exceed the maximum levels specified in paragraph (1) of the exclusion language. This verification program will occur as wastes are removed from the roll off box and scheduled for disposal. The volume of wastes removed from the roll off boxes may not exceed 750 cubic yards of sludge material annually. Any copper filter cake waste in excess of 750 cubic yards must be disposed as hazardous wastes. If EPA determines that the data collected under this paragraph do not support the data provided for the petition, the exclusion will not cover the generated wastes. If the data from the verification testing program demonstrate that the Filter cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung may commence disposing of the copper filter cake. EPA will notify Samsung in writing, if and when it begins and ends disposal of the copper filter cake.
To provide appropriate documentation that Samsung's Copper filter cake meet the delisting levels, Samsung must compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of five years. It should keep all analytical data obtained through paragraph (3) of the exclusion language including quality control information for five years. Paragraph (4) of the exclusion language requires that Samsung furnish these data upon request for inspection by any employee or representative of EPA or the State of Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made final, it will apply only to 750 cubic yards of Copper Filter cake generated at the Samsung Austin Refinery after successful verification testing. EPA would require Samsung to file a new delisting petition for waste generated in excess of the 750 cubic yards and treat the solids as hazardous waste.
Samsung must manage waste volumes greater than as generated wet 750 cubic yards of the Copper Filter cake as hazardous until EPA grants a new exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, Samsung's management of the wastes covered by this petition would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction, the Copper Filter cake from Samsung will be disposed of in an authorized, solid waste landfill (
The purpose of paragraph (6) of the exclusion language is to require Samsung to disclose new or different information related to a condition at the facility or disposal of the waste, if it is pertinent to the delisting. Samsung must also use this procedure, if the waste sample in the annual testing fails to meet the levels found in paragraph (1).
EPA believes that it has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978)
EPA believes a clear statement of its authority in delistings is merited, in light of EPA's experience. See Reynolds Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 and 62 FR 63458 where the delisted waste leached at greater concentrations in the environment than the concentrations predicted when conducting the TCLP, thus leading EPA to repeal the delisting. If an immediate threat to human health and the environment presents itself, EPA will continue to address these situations on a case-by-case basis. Where necessary, EPA will make a good cause finding to justify emergency rulemaking.
In order to adequately track wastes that have been delisted, EPA is requiring that Samsung provide a one-time notification to any state regulatory agency through which or to which the delisted waste is being carried. Samsung must provide this notification sixty (60) days before commencing this activity.
If Samsung violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, EPA will start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Where there is an immediate threat to human health and the environment, EPA will evaluate the need for enforcement activities on a case-by-case basis. EPA expects Samsung to conduct the appropriate waste analysis and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the exclusion.
EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. Please send three copies of your comments. Send two copies to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. Identify your comments at the top with this regulatory docket number: “EPA-R6-RCRA-2017-0254, Samsung Austin Semiconductor Copper Filter Cake Delisting.” You may submit your comments electronically to Michelle Peace at
You should submit requests for a hearing to Kishor Fruitwala, Section Chief (6MM-RP), Multimedia Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202.
You may review the RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule at the Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202. It is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information Act Review Room from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for appointments. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages, and at fifteen cents per page for additional copies. Docket materials may be available either electronically in
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform”, (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from management of this material in an authorized, solid waste landfill (
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed to be amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
New information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request approval of a new information collection associated with changes we are making to the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards pertaining to the compartmentalization of primary poultry breeding establishments and approval of compartment components such as farms, feedmills, hatcheries, and egg depots.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 12, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the National Poultry Improvement Plan Program Standards, contact Dr. Denise Brinson, DVM, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, 1506 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
The cooperative work is carried out through Memoranda of Understanding with the participating States. Specific NPIP provisions are contained at parts 56, 145, 146, and 147 of Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations. Veterinary Services (VS) within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers these regulations.
The NPIP has an existing information collection under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval number 0579-0007. This supplemental information collection, which will be merged into 0579-0007 at its next renewal, covers activities added by amending the NPIP Program Standards.
On July 12, 2016, we published a notice
Compartmentalization is a procedure a country may implement to define and manage animal subpopulations of distinct health status and a common biosecurity program within its territory, in accordance with the guidelines in the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code for the purpose of disease control and international trade. Compartmentalization may also enable continued interstate movement of breeding stock to domestic customers and operations if future low pathogenic avian influenza and/or highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks occur.
Under the amended NPIP Standards proposed in the July 2016 notice, APHIS would recognize companies and associated entities as compartments on its receipt and review of application forms. These forms would be reviewed and signed by the Official State Agency administering the NPIP on APHIS' behalf at the State level and approved by the NPIP national office. Once the application was approved, an auditor would be assigned to assess and inspect all components of the compartment. If all components passed inspection, NPIP would notify the company of its compartment certification and the list of certified components within the compartment. Recertification of components would take place every year.
Prospective auditors would have to meet defined criteria and apply to the NPIP for acceptance as certified auditors to conduct assessments of prospective compartments.
In the July 2016 notice we indicated that in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
APHIS is asking OMB to approve, for 3 years, its use of these information collection activities in connection with APHIS' efforts to continually improve the health of the U.S. poultry population and the quality of U.S. poultry products.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
(Due to rounding, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the average reporting burden per response).
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for blood and tissue collection and recordkeeping at slaughtering, rendering, and approved livestock marketing establishments and facilities to enhance animal disease surveillance.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 12, 2017.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
For information on the regulations for blood and tissue collection and recordkeeping at slaughtering, rendering, and approved livestock marketing establishments and facilities, contact Dr. Debra Cox, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Cattle Health Center, SPRS, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-3504. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Disease prevention is the most effective method for maintaining a healthy animal population and for enhancing the United States' ability to compete in international animal and animal product trade markets. APHIS uses livestock movement records and epidemiological data from blood and tissue sampling to conduct disease surveillance, assess the prevalence of disease, identify disease sources, and locate other animals that may have come into contact with a diseased animal.
When a disease is suspected in a given area, sampling is used to determine its presence or absence and to estimate the incidence or prevalence if it is present. The amount of sampling may increase in selected areas when a disease outbreak is suspected, then reduced in that area when sufficient tests have been done to prove the suspicion was unfounded or, if found, after the disease is eradicated. Sampling is also used to provide data for new or updated risk analyses in support of disease control programs, and, as required, opening international markets for animal products.
As part of this mission, APHIS' Veterinary Services conducts animal disease surveillance programs, diagnostic testing, and agreements in accordance with the regulations in 9 CFR part 71. Sections 71.20 and 71.21 authorize APHIS to conduct disease surveillance and blood and tissue sampling activities using livestock facility agreements and listing agreements between APHIS and owners and operators of slaughtering and rendering establishments and livestock
The information collection requirements above are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0579-0212 (Blood and Tissue Collection at Slaughtering and Rendering Establishments) and 0579-0258 (Interstate Movement of Sheep and Goats; Recordkeeping for Approved Livestock Marketing Facilities and Slaughtering and Rendering Establishments). After OMB approves this combined information collection package (0579-0212), APHIS will retire OMB control number 0579-0258. Also, as a result of the aforementioned merging of information collection packages, APHIS has revised the name of this information collection from “Blood and Tissue Collection at Slaughtering and Rendering Establishments” to “Blood and Tissue Collection and Recordkeeping at Slaughtering, Rendering, and Approved Livestock Marketing Establishments and Facilities”.
We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies;
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Metroplex International Trade Development Corporation, grantee of FTZ 168, requesting subzone status for the facility of R.W. Smith & Co/TriMark USA, LLC, located in Lewisville, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 11, 2017.
The proposed subzone (15.65 acres) is located at 2801 S. Valley Parkway in Lewisville, Texas. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 168.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 23, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 7, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
A request has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., to amend the application requesting subzone status for the facility of LT Autos, LLC, located in Ponce, Puerto Rico.
CODEZOL, C.D., is now requesting to include additional acreage located at 3215 Avenida Rafael Lugo González, Urb. Perla del Sur, Ponce. The proposed subzone will now consist of 4.12 acres (versus 1.505 acres as originally proposed).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 21013, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The closing period for their receipt is August 14, 2017. Rebuttal comments in
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Administration (ITC), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). In addition, the Department is amending its final determination to correct ministerial errors.
July 14, 2017.
Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on May 22, 2017, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the CVD investigation of rebar from Turkey.
The product covered by this order is rebar from Turkey. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
On May 24, 2017, Habaş Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endüstrisi A.Ş. (Habas) and the Government of Turkey (the GOT) alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the
The Department reviewed the record and agrees that certain errors identified by Habas constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of section 705(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of rebar from Turkey.
Because the ITC determined that imports of rebar from Turkey are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Turkey, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of countervailing duties. Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties for all relevant entries of rebar from Turkey in an amount equal to the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise. Countervailing duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after March 1, 2017, the date on which the Department published its preliminary determination in the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all relevant entries of rebar from Turkey, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in
The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated below, effective the date of publication of this amended final determination in the
The Department has calculated the following countervailable subsidy rates:
This notice constitutes the CVD order with respect to rebar from Turkey, pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of CVD orders currently in effect at
This order is issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise subject to this order is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing countervailing duty order on steel reinforcing bar from the Republic of Turkey.
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Administration (ITC), the Department is issuing antidumping duty (AD) orders on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) and Japan. In addition, the Department is amending its affirmative final determination for Turkey to correct ministerial errors.
July 14, 2017.
Myrna Lobo or Alex Cipolla at (202) 482-2371 and (202) 482-4956, respectively (Turkey), or David Lindgren at (202) 482-3870 (Japan), AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.210(c), the Department published its affirmative final determinations in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigations of rebar from Turkey and Japan.
The product covered by these orders is rebar from Turkey and Japan. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On May 22, 2017, the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual members,
A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Department considers ministerial.
The Department reviewed the record and agrees that certain errors identified by the petitioner with respect to Icdas constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f).
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations in these investigation, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of rebar from Turkey and Japan. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of rebar from Turkey and Japan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from Turkey and Japan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of rebar from Turkey and Japan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of rebar from Turkey and Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2017, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all relevant entries of rebar from Turkey and Japan, effective the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the
The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below, which are adjusted for certain countervailable export subsidies, where appropriate, effective the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the
The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:
This notice constitutes the antidumping orders with respect to rebar from Turkey and Japan, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at
These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The merchandise subject to these orders is steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. Subject merchandise includes deformed steel wire with bar markings (
The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject countries or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of these orders if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar.
Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
The subject merchandise is classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) primarily under item numbers 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010. The subject merchandise may also enter under other HTSUS numbers including 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.5000, 7221.00.0017, 7221.00.0018, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0045, 7222.11.0001, 7222.11.0057, 7222.11.0059, 7222.30.0001, 7227.20.0080, 7227.90.6030, 7227.90.6035, 7227.90.6040, 7228.20.1000, and 7228.60.6000.
HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application submitted by the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow participants to use electronic monitoring systems in lieu of at-sea monitors in support of a study to develop electronic monitoring for the purposes of catch monitoring in the groundfish fishery. Additionally, vessels would be authorized to access portions of groundfish closed areas. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2017.
You may submit written comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9255.
Groundfish sectors are required to implement and fund an at-sea monitoring (ASM) program. A sector is allowed to use electronic monitoring (EM) to satisfy this monitoring requirement, provided that NMFS deems the technology sufficient for catch monitoring. EM typically incorporates video cameras, gear sensors, and electronic reporting systems into a vessel's fishing operations. For the groundfish fishery, the program designs currently being considered are the “audit model” and the “maximized retention model.” The audit model would use EM to verify discards reported by a captain on a vessel trip report (VTR). Under the maximized retention model, vessels would be required to retain most fish species (
NMFS has not yet approved EM as a suitable alternative to ASM for the groundfish fishery. There are still some issues that must be resolved; for example, specifying how much video needs to be reviewed to satisfy monitoring objectives and identifying best practices for species that are difficult to identify. To address these challenges, NMFS has been collaborating with the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance (CCCFA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association, Ecotrust Canada, and several groundfish sectors since 2015. NMFS continues to develop an EM program with these partners that can be implemented for catch monitoring in the groundfish fishery. In May 2016, NMFS issued EFPs to vessels from the Georges Bank Cod Fixed Gear Sector, the Maine Coast Community Sector, the Sustainable Harvest Sector, and Northeast Fishery Sectors 5 and 11, which allowed them to use EM in lieu of at-sea monitors on trips selected for ASM, at the 14 percent target observer coverage level. Under the EFP, 100 percent of the video from these trips are reviewed and used to identify and enumerate discards of groundfish species. NMFS did not use discarded catch reported on the vessel trip report. In May 2017, the EFP was renewed to continue efforts to improve the functionality of EM, refine fish handling protocols, and support future implementation of the audit model. The 2017 target observer coverage is 16 percent. However, our partners are seeking to expand the use of EM and data collection, and requested this new, additional EFP.
Under this newest EFP, participants would be required to use EM on 100 percent of their groundfish trips to verify regulated groundfish discards, and EM would be used to replace at-sea monitors when selected for ASM
Given presumably high concentrations of healthy fish stocks in portions of groundfish closed areas, and because vessels would be fully monitored, the CCCFA also requested access to portions of groundfish closed areas to enable vessels to more effectively target healthy fish stocks (
All catch of groundfish stocks allocated to sectors by vessels would be deducted from the sector's annual catch entitlement for each groundfish stock. Legal-sized regulated groundfish would be retained and landed, as required by the FMP. Undersized groundfish would be handled according to the EM project guidelines in view of cameras and returned to the sea as quickly as possible. All other species would be handled per normal commercial fishing operations. No legal-size regulated groundfish would be discarded, unless otherwise permitted through regulatory exemptions granted to the participating vessel's sector.
NMFS has not yet developed the full set of business rules for an audit program, such as the pass/fail criteria and the video review rates. However, under this EFP, vessels would continue to pursue the audit model by reporting all catch (kept and discards) on their electronic VTR, and EM would be used to monitor discards from each trip. This EFP is expected to significantly increase EM data collection by requiring EM on 100 percent of trips along with increased opportunities for accessing healthy fish stocks within some closed areas. This will improve the ability to develop and implement an audit program, beyond the EFPs that required EM coverage of 14 percent last year, and 16 percent this year.
The CCCFA requested a gear exemption from the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) regulations; that request is being considered separately by the Atlantic HMS program.
The CCCFA also requested an exemption from the Pre-Trip Notification System (PTNS), which is used in several fisheries for NEFOP observer deployment and for ASM deployment in the groundfish fishery; we do not intend to grant that exemption. Vessels participating in this EFP are still required to take NEFOP observers, and without a suitable and fair alternative, we must still use PTNS to facilitate and monitor observer deployments in the fishery. Additionally, it is highly likely that all Federal vessels will have a pre-trip requirement as part of the Region's Fishery-Dependent Data Vision (FDDV) project. We think it is important to retain this type of requirement, rather than temporarily exempt vessels only to have it replaced by a similar requirement in the near future. However, we recognize the concerns expressed by the applicants, and the fishing industry at-large regarding reporting requirements. We expect that the FDDV will address many of these concerns, and that EM may offer the ability to simplify reporting. If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before September 12, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Gerard DiNardo, NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center, (858) 546-7106, or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Southwest Fisheries Science Center operates a billfish tagging program. Tagging supplies are provided to volunteer anglers. When anglers catch and release a tagged fish they submit a
Information is submitted by mail, via a paper form the size of a postcard.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of open public meetings.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC). The members will discuss and provide advice on improving resilience of coastal fishing communities.
The meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2017, 2-5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
Public access is available at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Any member of the public wishing to participate may contact Heidi Lovett, (301) 427-8034; email:
The MAFAC was established by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and, since 1971, advises the Secretary on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The charter and other information are located online at
The Committee is convening to discuss and finalize their recommendations on improving resilience of coastal fishing communities. Other administrative matters may be considered. This date, time, and agenda are subject to change.
The meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2017, 2-5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time by conference call. Conference call information for the public will be posted at
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Heidi Lovett, 301-427-8034 by July 26, 2017.
General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Department of Defense.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel will take place.
Open to the public, Wednesday, July 26, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. and Thursday, July 27, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
One Liberty Center, Suite 1432, 875 North Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Maria Fried, 703-571-2664 (Voice), 703-693-3903 (Facsimile),
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning its meeting on July 26 through 27, 2017, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
For meeting information please contact the staff director, Captain
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
On April 17, 2017, we published in the
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 28, 2017.
Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E-210, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-7349 or by email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
We are reopening the application deadline date for FY 2017 SRSA grant applications in order to allow eligible LEAs additional time to complete and submit their applications. All LEAs eligible to receive an SRSA award are required to submit an SRSA application in order to receive SRSA funds, regardless of whether the LEA received an award in prior years. An LEA eligible to receive FY 2017 SRSA funds that fails to submit an FY 2017 SRSA application or fails to submit an application in accordance with the application submission procedures will not receive an SRSA award this September.
Applicants that did not meet the initial June 30, 2017 deadline must submit applications by July 28, 2017 to be considered for FY 2017 funding.
Applicants must submit their applications in
All information in the notice of application deadline for FY 2017 SRSA grant applications remains the same, except for the deadline for the transmittal of applications.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
National Assessment Governing Board, U.S. Department of Education.
Announcement of open and closed meetings.
This notice sets forth the agenda for the August 3-5, 2017 Quarterly Board Meeting of the National Assessment Governing Board (hereafter referred to as Governing Board). This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meeting or providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. Written comments may be submitted electronically or in hard copy to the attention of the Executive Officer (see contact information below). Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The Quarterly Board Meeting will be held on the following dates:
• August 3, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• August 4, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
• August 5, 2017 from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.
Munira Mwalimu, Executive Officer/Designated Federal Official for the Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 825, Washington, DC 20002, telephone: (202) 357-6938, fax: (202) 357-6945, email:
The Governing Board is established to formulate policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Governing Board's responsibilities include the following: Selecting subject areas to be assessed, developing assessment frameworks and specifications, developing appropriate student achievement levels for each grade and subject tested, developing standards and procedures for interstate and national comparisons, improving the form and use of NAEP, developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, and releasing initial NAEP results to the public.
The Governing Board's standing committees will meet to conduct regularly scheduled work based on agenda items planned for this Quarterly Board Meeting and follow-up items as reported in the Governing Board's committee meeting minutes available at
On Thursday, August 3, 2017, ADC will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. ADC will then meet in closed session from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to review secure cognitive items and digital-based tasks, including hybrid hands-on tasks, for the grade 8 NAEP assessments in Civics, U.S. History, and Geography, and the NAEP Science assessments at grades 4, 8, and 12. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because the test items and data are secure and have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure test items would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
On Thursday, August 3, 2017, the Executive Committee will convene in open session from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to discuss regularly scheduled business.
On Friday, August 4, 2017, the Governing Board will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. to 9:40 a.m. The Governing Board will review and approve the August 3-5, 2017 Governing Board meeting agenda and meeting minutes from the May 2017
The Governing Board will recess for a 20 minute break and convene for standing committee meetings which will take place from 10:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Two of the standing committees—COSDAM and R&D—will meet in open session from 10:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m., while the third standing committee—ADC—will meet in closed session from 10:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. to continue their review of review secure cognitive items and digital-based tasks, including hybrid hands-on tasks, for the grade 8 NAEP assessments in Civics, U.S. History, and Geography, and the NAEP Science assessments at grades 4, 8, and 12. This meeting must be conducted in closed session because the test items and data are secure and have not been released to the public. Public disclosure of the secure test items would significantly impede implementation of the NAEP assessment program if conducted in open session. Such matters are protected by exemption 9(B) of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
Following the committee meetings, the full Governing Board will meet in open session from 12:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Ms. Peggy Carr will provide an overview of the High School Transcript Study from 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. Then the Governing Board will recess for a 15 minute break and reconvene at 2:00 p.m. A panel discussion to discuss priorities for the NAEP Assessment Schedule will take place from 2:00 p.m. to 3:15 p.m. Thereafter, from 3:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m., Chairman Terry Mazany will provide an overview of the breakout session goals, following which the Governing Board will convene in breakout sessions to discuss priorities for the NAEP Assessment Schedule vis-a-vis the Governing Board's Strategic Vision #9, which is to develop policy approaches to revise the NAEP assessment subjects and schedule. The August 4, 2017 session will adjourn at 4:45 p.m.
On August 5, 2017, the Nominations Committee will meet in closed session from 7:30 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. The committee chair will provide a briefing on the status of the 2017 slate of final candidates submitted to the Secretary and discuss plans for the 2018 nominations. The Nominations Committee's discussions pertain solely to internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such, the discussions are protected by exemptions 2 and 6 of § 552b(c) of Title 5 of the United States Code.
The Governing Board will meet in open session on August 5, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. to summarize the August 4 breakout discussions and discuss the Governing Board's priorities for the NAEP Assessment Schedule. From 9:15 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. the Governing Board will engage in discussion on the NAEP Framework Policy, Strategic Vision #5, which is to develop new approaches to update NAEP subject area frameworks. Thereafter the Governing Board will take a 15 minute break and reconvene from 10:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. to discuss the NAEP Achievement Level Setting Policy, Strategic Vision #5. From 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. the Governing Board will receive standing committee reports and take action on the election of the Governing Board's Vice Chair for the 2017-2018 term. The Governing Board will the hear remarks from departing members from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
The August 5, 2017 meeting will adjourn at 12:00 p.m.
Pub. L. 107-279, Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress § 301.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The existing Ludington Project is operated to generate during peak demand periods. Generation usually occurs during the day with the upper reservoir partially replenished at night during pumping. The project has an installed capacity of 1,785 megawatts with an average annual generation of approximately 2,624,189 megawatt hours.
l.
m. You may also register online at
n. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that on June 29, 2017, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana St., Suite 700, Houston, Texas 77002 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to construct and operate two new storage wells at Columbia's Wellington Storage Field located in Lorain and Medina Counties, Ohio. Specifically, Columbia proposes to construct two new storage wells (Wellington Storage Well 12599 and 12600) that will provide a combined total of approximately 10 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of restored deliverability to the Columbia system. The proposed wells will provide no change in the certificated physical parameters, including maximum reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries, and certificated storage capacity, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any person may, within 60 days after the 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. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed 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
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and teleconference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at:
The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:
For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8622 or
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final Order on petition to object to Clean Air Act Title V operating permit.
This document announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator has denied a petition from Philip Nolan asking EPA to object to a Title V operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Waupaca Foundry Plants 2/3 (Waupaca). Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(32) of the Clean Air Act (Act) provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the petition that EPA denies in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the
You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the day you would like to visit. Additionally, the final Order for the Waupaca petition is available electronically at:
Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard AR-18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 353-4761.
The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object, as appropriate, to Title V operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA review period to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. A petition must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.
EPA received a petition dated December 1, 2016, from Philip Nolan (Petitioner) requesting that EPA object to the Title V operating permit for Waupaca. The Petitioner alleged that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that: (1) The permit does not comply with Section 112 of the Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the iron and steel foundry industry and the definition of benzene, (2) actual emissions from the facility have created and sustained lethal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentrations in Waupaca County, (3) the WDNR mistakenly applied Chapter NR 445 requirements (Wisconsin's state HAP program), (4) the modeling procedures were not correct.
On June 7, 2017, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is announcing the availability of, and soliciting public comment on, two actions.
February 7-9, 2017, the Agency conducted a new baseline inspection of the Los Alamos waste characterization program, in accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria and Condition 3 of the EPA's May 13, 1998 initial WIPP certification. The inspection evaluated the technical adequacy of this program's characterization of contact-handled (CH) TRU debris and solid waste. The EPA is proposing to approve a new LANL baseline that includes the significant changes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Central Characterization Program (CCP) is implementing at Los Alamos. The TRU waste characterization program changes, particularly to the Acceptable Knowledge process, referred to as “enhanced AK”, address deficiencies identified by the DOE as among the root causes of the February 2014 radiation release at the WIPP. The EPA's baseline inspection report is available for review in the public dockets listed in the
The EPA is also proposing to eliminate the distinction between retrievably-stored and newly-generated TRU waste characterized to meet the EPA's regulatory requirements for disposal at the WIPP. Since the July 2004 revisions to the WIPP Compliance Criteria (specifically the site inspection and approval process), the EPA has identified characterization of newly-generated waste as a Tier 1 change when issuing the site-specific baseline approvals. Elimination of any Tier 1 change requirement is subject to public comment.
Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0231, to the
Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462) or Edward Feltcorn (202-343-9422), Radiation Protection Division, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, Mail Code 6608T, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; fax number: 202-343-2305; email address:
The DOE operates the WIPP facility near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. TRU waste consists of waste generated as part of the DOE's weapons programs with radioactive materials having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste, which may be contaminated with hazardous chemicals, consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as debris waste—rags, equipment, tools and solid waste—sludges and soil.
Section 8(d)(2) of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 provided that the EPA would certify whether the WIPP facility will comply with the Agency's final disposal regulations, later codified at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. On May 13, 1998, the EPA announced its final compliance certification to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998; 63 FR 27354), certifying that the WIPP will comply with the disposal regulations. The EPA's certification of the WIPP was subject to various conditions, including conditions concerning quality assurance and waste characterization and relating, among other things, to EPA inspections, evaluations and approvals of the site-specific TRU waste characterization programs to ensure compliance with various EPA regulatory requirements, including those at 40 CFR 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.22(c)(4), 194.24(c)(3) and 194.24(c)(5).
The EPA's inspection and approval processes for waste generator sites, including quality assurance and waste characterization programs, are described at 40 CFR 194.8. Between November 2005 and April 2012, the EPA inspected waste characterization programs of previously approved sites per the above requirements. The WIPP compliance certification and the aforementioned regulations, as well as these inspection and approval processes, give the EPA discretion in establishing technical priorities; the ability to accommodate variation in the site's waste characterization capabilities; and flexibility in scheduling site waste characterization inspections.
In accordance with the conditions in the WIPP compliance certification and relevant regulatory provisions, including 40 CFR 194.8, the EPA conducts “baseline” inspections at waste generator sites, as well as subsequent occasional inspections to confirm continued compliance. As part of a baseline inspection, the EPA evaluates each waste characterization process component (equipment, procedures and personnel training/experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in characterizing TRU waste destined for disposal at the WIPP. During the inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and tracking requirements under § 194.24. The baseline inspection can result in approval with limitations/conditions or may require follow-up inspection(s) before approval. The approval specifies what subsequent program changes or expansion should be reported to the EPA.
The EPA also assigns Tier 1 and Tier 2 designations to the reportable changes depending on their impact on the data quality. A Tier 1 designation requires that the site notify the EPA of proposed changes to the approved components of an individual waste characterization process (such as radioassay equipment or personnel), and that the Agency approve the change before it can be implemented. A waste characterization element with a Tier 2 designation allows the site to implement minor changes to the approved components of individual waste characterization processes (such as visual examination procedures) but requires notification to the EPA. The Agency may choose to inspect the site to evaluate technical adequacy before approval. The EPA inspections conducted to evaluate Tier 1 or Tier 2 changes are under the authority of the EPA's WIPP compliance certification conditions and the EPA regulations, including 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24(h). In addition to follow-up inspections, the EPA may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites with a baseline approval under the authority of § 194.24(h).
In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, the EPA issues a
Currently, the CCP implements TRU waste characterization at three DOE sites: The Idaho National Laboratory, LANL and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
May 23-25, 2006, the EPA performed a baseline inspection for characterizing contact-handled TRU waste at Los Alamos, and, on June 21, 2007, issued its final baseline inspection report and approval of Los Alamos waste characterization processes. However, in February 2014, a radiation release occurred at the WIPP from a compromised drum containing contact-handled TRU sludge waste generated at Los Alamos that CCP characterized and certified as meeting the requirements for disposal. This drum contained nitrate salts, processed (treated to absorb free liquid using an organic material in mid-2013) and emplaced at the WIPP in late 2013. The DOE's Accident Investigation Board determined the cause of the radiation release was an exothermic reaction due to the use of incompatible, organic sorbent material instead of inorganic sorbents. The Investigation Board identified several programmatic and technical violations, including non-compliance with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) hazardous waste permit requirements. These findings required corrective actions by Los Alamos (the generator of WIPP-eligible TRU waste), the CCP (responsible for characterization and certification of WIPP-eligible waste containers), the DOE's Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) and the DOE Headquarters Environmental Management office. The waste characterization-specific corrective actions required improvements in the following two technical areas:
• Collection, evaluation, documentation and verification of acceptable knowledge specific to the chemical contents of WIPP-bound TRU waste (especially chemical incompatibility and reactivity);
• evaluation and confirmation that waste treatment procedures completed to render containerized TRU waste
Between summer 2014 and spring 2015, CBFO made changes to the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (the DOE requirements for WIPP-bound TRU waste). In June 2015, the CBFO issued Revision 8.0 of the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria, modifying the Acceptable Knowledge process. This modified process is referred to as the Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge process. The EPA determined that the changes to the Waste Acceptance Criteria and the Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge process implemented at TRU generator sites are significantly different from the processes the EPA evaluated during previous site-specific baseline inspections. As a result, the EPA concluded and informed the DOE that a new Los Alamos baseline inspection and approval would be a necessary step to evaluate the technical adequacy of the CCP-implemented Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge process at currently active TRU waste generator sites.
The purpose of EPA's baseline inspection was to:
(1) Verify that contact-handled TRU waste being characterized remains in compliance with regulatory requirements, including the conditions of the EPA's WIPP compliance certification and 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24; and
(2) understand how the revised DOE WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria are incorporated within CCP's TRU waste characterization processes.
The scope of the baseline inspection for determining technical adequacy of the waste characterization program elements (
• The Acceptable Knowledge process, focusing on the “Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge” process for contact-handled TRU debris and solid waste.
• The nondestructive assay process, specifically, the High-Efficiency Neutron Counter No. 3 at Technical Area No. 55.
• The visual examination process to identify waste material parameters and the physical form of contact-handled TRU waste as performed at Technical Area No. 55 and the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility.
• The WIPP Waste Data System controls that are in place to ensure that only fully characterized and certified TRU waste containers can be emplaced at the WIPP.
The EPA inspection team identified no concerns as a result of this inspection. The EPA concludes that LANL-CCP has implemented a waste characterization program at Los Alamos for contact-handled TRU waste that is compliant with WIPP waste acceptance criteria, and which adequately implements the requirement for an Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge determination for WIPP-destined TRU waste containers. As discussed in the draft Los Alamos Baseline Inspection Report (see EPA Air Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0231), the EPA determines that the waste characterization program complies with regulatory requirements, including the conditions of EPA's WIPP compliance certification and 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24. As a result, the EPA is proposing to approve the LANL-CCP waste characterization program in the configuration observed during this inspection, consistent with the limitations described in the draft inspection report. In the event of changes to the waste characterization program arising or occurring after the date of the baseline inspection (February 7-9, 2017), the DOE must report those changes and, if applicable, receive EPA approval of such changes according to Table 1, in this preamble. If the EPA approves changes to the waste characterization program, the Agency will post the results of any evaluations relating to such changes through the EPA Web site/docket and the WIPP-NEWS email listserv. As indicated in Table 1, in this preamble, LANL-CCP must report to EPA Tier 2 changes; such reports must be made four times a year, on a quarterly basis. In addition to evaluations of Tier 1 and Tier 2 changes, the EPA will conduct periodic inspections to verify that TRU waste characterization activities continue to comply with regulatory requirements, including the conditions of EPA's WIPP compliance certification and 40 CFR 194.8 and 194.24, and continue to implement the EPA-approved processes, procedures and equipment as required by the WIPP waste acceptance criteria.
The EPA's final approval decision regarding the contact-handled TRU waste characterization program at Los Alamos will be conveyed to the DOE separately by letter following the EPA's review of public comments. This information will be provided through the EPA Web site/docket and by emails to the WIPP-NEWS listserv.
The EPA has placed the draft report discussing the results of the inspection of the waste characterization program at Los Alamos in the public docket as described in the
Information on the approval decision will be filed in the official public docket opened for this action on
The DOE (in its original WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria) and the NMED (in its 1999 WIPP Hazardous Waste Permit, including the WIPP Waste Analysis Plan [WAP]) identified the TRU waste characterized for WIPP disposal based on its generation time period as follows:
• Retrievably-stored waste was defined as:
• Newly-generated waste was defined as waste produced by the generator/storage site after NMED notification that it has appropriately implemented the NMED-approved WIPP WAP-based waste characterization requirements.
The EPA's original WIPP Performance Assessment and subsequent Compliance Recertification Application decisions incorporated the earlier distinction. Also, in connection with its certification of the WIPP's compliance with 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C, the EPA discussed the distinction between these two categories (63 FR 27354, 27392; May 18, 1998). Additionally, the EPA incorporated the NMED's Waste Analysis Plan as part of the “system of controls” for characterizing WIPP-destined TRU waste for compliance with 40 CFR 194.24(c). Similarly, site-specific waste characterization programs maintained that distinction to remain in compliance with the DOE WAC identification of different characterization pathways. In 2013, NMED approved a hazardous waste permit modification request where AK remained as the sole characterization method for hazardous waste determination, which includes assigning RCRA hazardous waste numbers for chemical contents of the waste containers. This eliminated the need to use separate waste characterization pathways for newly-
Pursuant to the 2004 rulemaking changes to 40 CFR 194.8 for all waste, the EPA required characterization of newly-generated waste as a T1 change under AK at all sites where its characterization was not demonstrated as part of the baseline inspections. The 2013 NMED WIPP hazardous waste permit changes discussed above negated this distinction. Therefore, to be consistent with the revised NMED hazardous waste permit and the DOE's revised WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria, the EPA intends to no longer distinguish, in its waste characterization program inspection, review and evaluation activities, between newly-generated and retrievably-stored waste. Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to remove from the site-specific tiering tables the Acceptable Knowledge T1 change requirement for newly-generated waste at all sites characterizing TRU waste. This proposed action would streamline the need for the DOE to submit duplicative TRU waste approval requests and for subsequent duplicative EPA evaluation and approvals. The EPA seeks comment on this proposed action. After evaluating public comments, if the EPA concludes that there are no unresolved issues, the Agency will issue a letter authorizing the DOE to eliminate the distinction between retrievably-stored and newly-generated TRU waste. The Agency will also revise site-specific tiering tables as necessary to remove the existing Tier 1 change requirement for newly-generated TRU waste when issuing the next site-specific waste characterization program approval, as well as file all official documentation in its public docket (as described in Section IV in this preamble).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a three (3) day meeting of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (“e-Manifest”) Advisory Board to consider and advise the Agency about the initial launch of the e-Manifest System (Meeting Theme: “
The meeting will be held on September 26-28, 2017, from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
Fred Jenkins, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (MC: 5303P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703-308-7049; or by email:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to persons who are or may be subject to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment (e-Manifest) Act.
You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this document. To ensure proper receipt of your public comments by the EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0368.
1.
2.
3.
The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board is established in accordance with the provisions of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, 42 U.S.C. 6939g, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The e-Manifest Advisory Board is in the public interest and supports the Environmental Protection Agency in performing its duties and responsibilities.
The e-Manifest Advisory Board will provide recommendations on matters related to the operational activities, functions, policies, and regulations of the EPA under the e-Manifest Act, including:
• The effectiveness of the e-Manifest IT system and associated user fees and processes;
• Matters and policies related to the e-Manifest program;
• Regulations and guidance as required by the e-Manifest Act;
• Actions to encourage the use of the electronic (paperless) system;
• Changes to the user fees as described in e-Manifest Act Section 2 (c)(3)(B)(i); and
• Issues in the e-Manifest area, including those identified in the EPA' s E-Enterprise strategy that intersect with the e-Manifest system, such as:
• Business-to-business communications;
• Performance standards for mobile devices; and
• The EPA's Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) requirements.
• At least two (2) members who have expertise in information technology;
• At least three (3) members who have experience in using or represent users of the manifest system to track the transportation of hazardous waste under the e-Manifest Act;
• At least three (3) members who will be state representatives responsible for processing e-manifests.
All members of the e-Manifest Advisory Board, with the exception of the EPA Administrator, will be appointed as Special Government Employees or representatives.
The EPA is on schedule to launch the hazardous waste electronic manifest (e-Manifest) system in June 2018. Manifest users who intend to track their hazardous waste shipments electronically or access manifest data from the e-Manifest system should register with the EPA prior to system launch. The EPA will hold a three-day Federal Advisory Committee meeting on September 26-28, 2017, to address user registration and account activation issues that need resolution prior to launching the e-Manifest system. Specifically, the Advisory Board will provide recommendations to the EPA on the process the EPA should use to register and activate user accounts and electronic signature agreements (ESAs) for the e-Manifest System.
The EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/questions to the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board roster (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final actions.
This notice is to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit numbered OCS-EPA-R4021 to Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (Anadarko) on December 20, 2016. In addition, the EPA is providing notice that, at the permittee's request, EPA rescinded an OCS permit numbered OCS-EPA-R4012 on March 23, 2016, for Statoil Gulf Services LLC (Statoil).
The final permits and supporting information are available at
Ms. Kelly Fortin, Air Permitting Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Fortin can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9117 and via electronic mail at
On November 14, 2016, EPA requested public comments on the proposed OCS air permit numbered OCS-EPA-R4021 for the Anadarko Bob Douglas project. During the public comment period, which ended on December 14, 2016, the EPA did not receive any comments.
After consideration of the pertinent federal statutes and regulations, the application and supplemental information submitted by the applicant, and additional material relevant to the application contained in the Administrative Record, the EPA made a final determination on December 20, 2016, in accordance with 40 CFR parts 55 and 71 to issue the final air permit. Because no comments were filed, the Anadarko permit became effective on December 20, 2016.
In addition, on December 29, 2015, EPA received a request from Statoil for EPA to rescind OCS permit OCS-EPA-R4012 as Statoil was no longer conducting exploratory drilling operations pursuant to this permit. Pursuant to Statoil's request and 40 CFR part 55, EPA terminated Statoil's OCS permit on March 23, 2016.
EPA must follow the administrative procedures of 40 CFR part 71 when issuing permits to OCS sources subject to Title V requirements such as the Anadarko and Statoil sources identified above.
This document was received for publication by the Office of the Federal Register on July 11, 2017.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Maritime Commission (Commission) is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted at the addresses below on or before August 14, 2017.
Comments should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Federal Maritime Commission, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
A copy of the submission may be obtained by contacting Donna Lee on 202-523-5800 or email:
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Commission invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on a proposed information collection. On September 3, 2015, the Commission published a 60-day notice and request for comments in the
As required by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), 5 U.S.C. 571-574, the information contained in these forms is treated as confidential and subject to the same confidentiality provisions as administrative dispute resolutions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 574. Except as specifically set forth in 5 U.S.C. 574, neither CADRS staff nor the parties to a dispute resolution shall disclose any informal dispute resolution communication.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. The FMC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
46 U.S.C. 40101
Federal Maritime Commission.
July 19, 2017; 10:00 a.m.
800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, Washington, DC.
The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second portion will be held in Closed Session.
Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
In notice document 2017-08670 appearing on pages 20340-20341 in the issue of May 1, 2017, make the following correction:
On page 20341, in the second column, under the heading
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on the CDC information collection project titled “CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP).” This revision of DPRP Standards and Operating Procedures (
Written comments must be received on or before September 12, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0053 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
CDC Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP) (OMB Control Number 0920-0909, exp. 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation (DDT) established and administers the National DPP's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program (DPRP), which recognizes organizations that deliver diabetes prevention programs according to evidence-based requirements set forth in the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Recognition Program Standards and Operating Procedures” (DPRP Standards). Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) expansion of CDC's National DPP was announced in early 2016, when the Secretary of Health and Human Services determined that the Diabetes Prevention Program met the statutory criteria for inclusion in Medicare's expanded list of healthcare services for beneficiaries (
CDC requests an additional three-year OMB approval to continue collecting the information needed to administer the DPRP and information needed by CMS to support the MDPP benefit. Based on experience with the DPRP from 2011-2017, and feedback from applicant organizations and internal and external partners, CDC plans to revise the DPRP Standards and the associated information collection.
Key changes relate to incorporation of variables needed to ensure the seamless implementation of the CMS MDPP benefit. The majority of the additional data elements included in the current Standards revision are the result of new CMS requirements for MDPP suppliers. In particular, CMS is requiring de-identified participant-level data submission every 6 months. While data submissions every 6 months are included to align with the CMS MDPP supplier requirements, this change will also benefit organizations that are not MDPP suppliers, as it will allow them to receive more feedback in an effort to make necessary mid-course corrections and successfully achieve either preliminary or full recognition status. Semiannual evaluation of organization performance was part of the initial 2011 OMB approval for CDC's DPRP information collection.
One data element has been revised and eleven additional data elements have been added in either the one-time application form or within the evaluation data elements:
Additional changes to the DPRP Standards or DPRP information collection may be requested during the period of the Revision request, as CDC continues discussions with recognized programs and potential applicants and reviews results from ongoing studies.
During the period of this Revision, CDC estimates receipt of approximately 500 DPRP application forms per year. The estimated burden per one-time, up-front application response is 1 hours (annualized to 500 hours one-time across all new organizations). In addition, CDC estimates receipt of semi-annual evaluation data submissions from the same 500 additional organizations per year; estimated at 2 hours per response. The total estimated average annualized evaluation burden to respondents is 7,676 hours. This includes an estimate of the time needed to extract and compile the required data records and fields from an existing electronic database, review the data, create or enter a data file in the required format (
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comments on a proposed information collection project titled “Assessment of Restaurant Ill Worker Policies.”
Written comments must be received on or before September 12, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0054 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study—NEW—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a new three-year Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance to conduct information collection entitled “Assessment of Ill Worker Policies Study.”
CDC's National Center for Environmental Health implements the Environmental Health Specialists Network (EHS-Net) program, which conducts studies to identify and understand environmental factors associated with foodborne illness outbreaks and other food safety issues (
EHS-Net is a collaborative project of the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), industry partners and eight state and local public health departments (California, Minnesota, New York, New York City, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Southern Nevada Health District, and Harris County Texas). CDC funds these state and local health departments, which enables them to collaborate on study design, collect study data, and co-analyze study data with CDC. The federal partners also provide funding and input into study design and data analysis.
Ill food service workers have long been identified as a source of contamination in restaurants. The 2013 FDA Food Code specifically addresses food worker health under section 2-201. However, even with these regulations in place food workers continue to serve as a source for disease transmission (
The FDA Food Code calls for excluding food workers from working in the restaurant that are diagnosed with an illness or have symptoms. Research has indicated that many food service workers have reported working while sick and that the reasons provided are multi-faceted. To assist in reducing this national disease burden, it is critical to develop and implement successful interventions that address the reasons that restaurant workers continue to work while sick. The goals of this study include:
(1) Assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of both restaurant managers and workers to working while ill; and
(2) Assess whether an educational intervention will result in restaurants enhancing their ill worker management procedures.
The data from this study can be used to further develop educational materials, trainings, and tools that are targeted towards improving retail food establishment ill worker management practices. This improvement can contribute to a decrease in the number of food service workers that continue to work while ill in retail food establishments and a subsequent decrease in the contamination of foodstuffs from the ill worker.
This data collection request aims to address data gap by surveying restaurants on their ill worker polices through a quasi-experimental non-equivalent group pre- post-test design, with implementation of an educational intervention to randomly selected independently-owned restaurants in the catchment area. The assessments at each site visit will be the same in both the intervention and control restaurants. Data collection will consist of a manager interview to understand the current practices in the restaurant, a facility observation to observe the practices in place to prevent contamination from an employee, and a food worker survey to obtain their beliefs towards the current policies.
The educational intervention planned in the study is designed to encourage restaurants to develop ill worker management policies that have provisions to address the reasons that workers have reported working while ill. The efficacy of the intervention will be measured using a pre- post-test non-equivalent groups design.
If the intervention is resulting in having restaurants enhance their ill worker management policies; at the follow up visit, the intervention will be provided to the control restaurants and an additional follow up visit will occur in these restaurants.
For the purpose of the burden hours, eight sites will collect data in 40 restaurants. The total estimated annualized burden hours averaged over the three-year study period are 200 burden hours. Participation in this proposed information collection is completely voluntary. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of intent; announcement of public meeting; and request for comments.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in cooperation with the General Services Administration (GSA), announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze and assess the environmental impacts of the proposed acquisition of a site in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the development of this site into a new consolidated CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) campus (Proposed Action). The site being considered for acquisition and development is bounded by Martin Luther King Drive East to the south, Harvey Avenue to the west, Ridgeway Avenue to the north, and Reading Road to the east.
This notice is pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). CDC, in cooperation with GSA, also intends to initiate consultation, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), to evaluate the potential effects, if any, of the Proposed Action on historic properties.
The public scoping meeting will be held at the Walnut Hills High School, 3250 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207. Attendees should use the Parking Lot D entrance.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0059 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Harry Marsh, Architect, Office of Safety, Security and Asset Management (OSSAM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-K80, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, phone: (770) 488-8170, or email:
Three NIOSH research facilities—the Robert A. Taft Campus, Taft North Campus, and the Alice Hamilton Laboratory Campus—currently are located in Cincinnati, Ohio. Even with multiple renovations through the years, these facilities no longer meet the needs of modern research. The facilities' deficiencies adversely affect NIOSH's ability to conduct its important Cincinnati-based occupational safety and health research. The facilities' outdated designs create health and safety challenges for NIOSH laboratory employees and administrative staff. It is not possible to renovate the facilities located on the three campuses to meet current standards and requirements. Additionally, the current distribution of NIOSH activities across separate campuses results in inefficiencies in scientific collaboration and the duplication of operational support activities. Therefore, CDC is proposing to relocate and consolidate its Cincinnati-based functions and personnel (approximately 550 employees) currently housed at the three existing campuses to a new, consolidated campus in Cincinnati.
Potential locations for the proposed new campus were identified through a comprehensive site selection process conducted by GSA on behalf of CDC. In June 2016, GSA issued a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) seeking potential sites capable of accommodating the proposed new
In response to the REOI, GSA received seven expressions of interest (
In accordance with NEPA, as implemented by the CEQ regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), CDC is initiating the preparation of an EIS for the proposed acquisition of the Site and construction of a new consolidated CDC/NIOSH campus on the Site. Under NEPA, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed actions and a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action before making a decision. At a minimum, the EIS will evaluate the following two alternatives: the Proposed Action Alternative (acquisition of the Site and construction of a new consolidated CDC/NIOSH campus) and the No Action Alternative (continued use of the existing campuses for the foreseeable future).
The purpose of this Notice is to inform interested parties regarding CDC's plan to prepare an EIS for the proposed Site acquisition in Cincinnati, Ohio and the development of the Site into a new consolidated HHS/CDC/NIOSH campus; to provide information on the nature of the Proposed Action; and to initiate the scoping process. The public scoping meeting will be held on August 1, 2017 at the Walnut Hills High School, 3250 Victory Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45207, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Attendees should use the Parking Lot D entrance. The public scoping meeting will be in open house format. General information on the Site and the Proposed Action will be provided and representatives of CDC and GSA will be available to answer one-on-one questions. There will be no formal presentation or question-and-answer session. Participants may arrive at any time between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Comment forms will be provided for written comments and a stenographer will be available to transcribe oral comments. Through the NEPA scoping process, CDC will also facilitate consultation with the public as required by Section 106 of the NHPA.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to
Zika virus persistence in body fluids of patients with Zika virus infection in Puerto Rico (ZIPER Study) (OMB Control Number 0920-1140, Expiration Date 10/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC is seeking a one-year OMB approval to extend the ZIPER Study information collection.
The Zika Persistence (ZIPER) study will help inform the presence and duration of ZIKV shedding in several body fluids among RT-PCR-positive ZIKV cases from Puerto Rico. It will also provide information regarding the duration of detection of anti-ZIKV IgM antibodies and the time for development of IgG antibodies among the same population. In addition, this study will determine the prevalence of anti-ZIKV IgM and IgG, and virus shedding in body fluids among household contacts of ZIKV cases.
We propose to investigate the persistence (shedding) of ZIKV in different body fluids and its relation to
The study will include baseline and follow-up questionnaires and the collection of the following specimens: blood, saliva, urine from participants of all ages, and semen/vaginal secretions from adults (ages 21 years or older) and legally emancipated minors (support themselves financially, live independent of their parents, are pregnant, or have children).
Individuals with RT-PCR positive ZIKV infection will be recruited through the Sentinel Enhanced Dengue Surveillance System (SEDSS) at Saint Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Ponce, Puerto Rico and through passive surveillance in selected municipalities in Puerto Rico. SEDSS was established in 2012 through a cooperative agreement between the hospital in Consortium with the Ponce School of Medicine and Ponce Research Institute from the Ponce Health Sciences University and the CDC (Protocol #6214).
Specimens will be tested for the presence of ZIKV RNA by RT-PCR at the CDC Dengue Branch Laboratory in San Juan, and positive specimens will be further tested for virus isolation to evaluate infectivity. Each body fluid will be collected on a weekly basis for four weeks and biweekly thereafter until two consecutive negative RT-PCR results are obtained from all specimens. Irrespective of RNA detection, body fluids will also be collected for RT-PCT at 2, 4, and 6 months to investigate intermittent shedding. Analyses of antibody response through titers of IgM and IgG will be performed at baseline and repeated at 2, 4, and 6 months.
Among symptomatic participants seven milliliters of blood will be drawn at each study visit split into a tiger top tube (5ml) and a purple top tube (2ml) for a total not to exceed 50 ml during any given 8-week period. At enrollment healthy non-pregnant adults will have 20 ml of blood collected following standard procedures. Two tiger top tubes of 8.5 ml and one 3ml purple top tubes will be collected. These procedures will be repeated at each follow-up visit.
RT-PCR-positive participants will be asked to refer up to five household members to establish the percentage of household members with detectable and potentially infectious Zika virus RNA in body fluids. Household members who are found to be ZIKV RT-PCR-positive in any body fluid will be invited to participate in the cohort study. A second study visit will be scheduled with household contact at 2 or 4 months, to detect new infections and estimate incidence. Because the original study consent forms do not include this visit, household contacts will be contacted by study staff and will be consented again using the same consent form.
Since gaining OMB approval in October 2016, the project has enrolled 295 Zika virus-infected individuals into the Zika virus Persistence study, which is 55 individuals below the target enrollment of 350 individuals.
Preliminary findings have been published in New England Journal of Medicine, where we also expect that the final report that includes the full sample size will be published.
This is a request to continue information collection with minor modifications. Modifications have been made to reflect the developing nature of the science surrounding Zika virus infection and potential outcomes associated with infection, as well as additional questions that were best answered by taking advantage of the existing study platform. Specifically, CDC proposes the addition of two components to the collection of data under this study, one of which has already begun:
1. A follow-up household visit has been added to determine how many household members of Zika virus-infected participants become infected during the 4 months following initial screening. For any household members that had no evidence of Zika virus infection at the initial visit, the same questionnaires used at the initial household visit will again be completed ~4 months later. Such information will provide additional information regarding the incidence of Zika virus infections among households with a Zika-positive household member.
2. Additionally, CDC proposes following up with men with Zika virus-positive semen specimens to better understand the effect of Zika virus infection on sperm. To do this, 8-14 semen ejaculates from 10-20 men participating in the ZIPER study will be used to determine the presence and/or detection of the Zika virus in different fractions of the semen ejaculate (
Authorizing legislation comes from Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241). The total estimated annualized number of burden hours is 243. There is no cost to respondents other than the time to participate.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The guidances, when finalized, provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
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 a draft guidance announced in this notice before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 12, 2017.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Xiaoqiu Tang, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 4730, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5850.
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process as a means to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's Web site
FDA is announcing the availability of a new draft product-specific guidance for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of a revised draft product-specific guidance for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidances at either
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 a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.
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/or contract proposals and the
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Council (SCDAC) was renewed for an additional two-year period on June 30, 2017.
It is determined that the SCDAC is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the National Institutes of Health by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.
Inquires may be directed to Jennifer Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer at (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Treatment has developed a set of infrastructure development measures in which recipients of cooperative agreements will report on various benchmarks on a semi-annual basis. The infrastructure development measures are designed to collect information at the state-level and site-level.
The projects were previously named State Adolescent Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SAT-ED) and State Youth Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination (SYT-ED) Programs and are now called State Adolescent And Transitional Aged Youth Treatment Enhancement and Dissemination Implementation (SYT-I) and Adolescent and Transitional Aged Youth Treatment Implementation (YT-I) Programs.
No changes have been made to the Biannual Infrastructure Development Measures Report. The only revision to the biannual progress report is due to the decrease in the number of respondents.
The infrastructure development measures are based on the programmatic requirements conveyed in TI-15-004, Cooperative Agreements for SYT-I and TI-17-002, Cooperative Agreements for YT-I.
The purpose of this program is to provide funding to States/Territories/Tribes to improve treatment for adolescents and transitional age youth through the development of a learning laboratory with collaborating local community-based treatment provider sites. Through the shared experience between the State/Territory/Tribe and the local community-based treatment provider sites, an evidence-based practice (EBP) will be implemented, youth and families will be provided services, and a feedback loop will be developed to enable the State/Territory/Tribe and the sites to identify barriers and test solutions through a services component operating in real time. The expected outcomes of these cooperative agreements will include needed changes to State/Territorial/Tribal policies and procedures; development of financing structures that work in the current environment; and a blueprint for States/Territories/Tribes and providers that can be used throughout the State/Territory/Tribe to widen the use of effective substance use treatment EBPs. Additionally, adolescents (ages 12 to 18), transitional age youth (ages 18 to 24), and their families/primary caregivers who are provided services through grant funds will inform the process to improve systems issues.
Estimates for response burden were calculated based on the methodology (survey data collection) being used and are based on previous experience collecting similar data and results of the pilot study. For emailed biannual surveys, burden estimates of 12.0 hours were used for Project Directors and/or Program Managers and burden estimates
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 15E-57B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed information collection was previously published in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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. The information collection is published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to
Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Office.
Notice of Modified Privacy Act System of Records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to modify and reissue a current Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.” This system of records allows the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency to collect and maintain records on the customer service performance of its employees and contractors who interact with individuals who apply for the Agency's individual assistance and public assistance programs.
As a result of a biennial review of this system, the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency is updating this system of records notice to update the system location, remove the use of the term vendors for clarity as it is interchangeable with contractors in this instance, and replace the use of the term National Processing Service Center (NPSC) with the new term Regional Service Center (RSC). Additionally, this notice includes non-substantive changes to simplify the formatting and text of the previously published notice. This modified system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
Submit comments on or before August 14, 2017. This modified system will be effective August 14, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0023 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
For general questions, please contact: William Holzerland, (202) 212-5100, Senior Director for Information Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20478. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to modify and reissue a current DHS system of records titled, “DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.”
DHS/FEMA published this system of records notice because FEMA collects, uses, maintains, and retrieves personally identifiable information (PII) from its employees and contractors for internal employee performance evaluations, training, process improvement, and quality assurance purposes to improve customer service to individual assistance and public assistance applicants. FEMA collects information from individual applicants (including PII) as necessary, or uses information previously collected from them to provide customer service to these applicants.
FEMA is updating this system of records notice to provide greater transparency to the public on its migration to the Contact Center Capability Modernization Program (C3MP), a new information technology system. FEMA is updating the system location to: 1) include the C3MP IT system, which maintains these records; 2) remove the use of the term vendors for clarity as it is interchangeable with contractors in this instance; and 3) replace the use of the term National Processing Service Center (NPSC) with the new term Regional Service Center (RSC). Additionally, FEMA is making non-substantive grammatical changes throughout this notice for the purpose of clarification.
The purpose of this system of records is to enable FEMA's Quality Control Department, Customer Satisfaction Analysis Section, Contract Oversight Management Section, and FEMA RSC Supervisory staff to better monitor, evaluate, and assess its employees and contractors so that FEMA can improve customer service to those seeking disaster assistance. The purpose is consistent with FEMA's mission to improve its capability to respond to all hazards and support the citizens of our Nation.
FEMA is authorized to collect information in order to properly administer the programs that are
Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, DHS/FEMA may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.
This modified system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Below is the description of the DHS/FEMA-002 Quality Assurance Recording System of Records.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-002 Quality Assurance Recording System.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained at the FEMA Headquarters in Washington, DC and field offices, and also within the Contact Center Modernization Program (C3MP) IT system.
Program Manager, Recovery Technology Programs Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Texas Recovery Service Center, Denton, TX 76208, (940) 891-8500.
5 U.S.C. 301; 5 CFR 430.102; 5 U.S.C. 4302; 5 U.S.C. 7106(a); 6 U.S.C. 795; 29 U.S.C. 204(b); Executive Order No. 13571; FEMA Directive 3100.1; FEMA Directive 3700.1; and FEMA Directive 3700.2.
The purpose of this system is to collect, maintain, use, and retrieve performance records of the FEMA employees and contractors who interact with applicants of the Agency's individual assistance and public assistance programs for internal employee and contractor performance evaluations, training, and quality assurance purposes to improve FEMA's customer service to and satisfaction of those individuals applying for FEMA's individual and public assistance programs.
This system collects information from FEMA employees and contractors who are making or receiving telephone calls to or from disaster assistance applicants; FEMA employees and contractors engaged in the case review of disaster assistance applications not related to a telephone call to or from a disaster assistance applicant; and FEMA employees and contractors performing customer service satisfaction assessments involving applicants of FEMA individual assistance or public assistance programs. Voice recordings or screenshots may be captured during provision of customer service for training and feedback purposes. These captures may contain disaster survivor information as listed below under “Categories of Record in the System.”
• Voice recordings of telephone calls between FEMA employees and contractors and applicants for FEMA's individual assistance and public assistance programs. Telephone calls may include a third-party vendor that is providing language translation services on behalf of FEMA;
• A “quality result” generated in C3MP for each call or case processing activity that is evaluated by a FEMA supervisor or quality control specialist assessing the level of customer service provided by the FEMA employee/contractor to the FEMA individual assistance or public assistance applicant;
• System-generated Contact ID;
• Name of FEMA employee who conducted the assessment;
• Identification number of FEMA employee who conducted the assessment;
• FEMA employee/contractor name; and
• FEMA employee/contractor user identification number.
Tracking of FEMA employee/contractor activity related to call recordings, case review processing not related to a phone call, and customer satisfaction assessments may include the following individual assistance applicant information:
• Survey ID;
• Applicant's name;
• Applicant email address;
• Home address;
• Social Security number;
• Applicant phone number(s);
• Current mailing address; and
• Personal financial information including applicant's bank name, bank account information, insurance information, and individual or household income.
Tracking of FEMA employee/contractor activity related to call recordings for customer satisfaction assessments may include the following public assistance applicant information:
• Survey ID;
• Applicant/Point of Contact name and title;
• Applicant email address;
• Organization Name;
• Applicant's organization phone number(s); and
• Organization's business and/or mailing address.
FEMA obtains records from FEMA employees and contractors who assist disaster survivors in the disaster
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:
1. DHS or any component thereof;
2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;
3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or
4. The United States or any agency thereof.
B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
1. DHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary and otherwise compatible with the purpose of collection to assist another federal recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach; or
2. DHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of this system of records; and (a) DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, harm to DHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (b) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.
G. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.
H. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
DHS/FEMA stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by the FEMA employee and/or contractor's name and user identification number, or system-generated Contact ID number. This system does not retrieve information by individual or public assistance applicant information.
The retention period for information maintained in C3MP depends on the use of the data. Records within C3MP that are used in an evaluation of a FEMA employee or contractor are retained for six years, pursuant to FEMA Records Schedule, Series 15-1 “National Processing Service Centers Evaluated Call Recordings,” NARA Authority N1-311-08-1. Records that are not used in an evaluation of a FEMA employee or contractor are purged from the secured servers within 45 days, per FEMA Records Schedule, Series 15-2 “National Processing Service Centers Unevaluated Call Recordings,” also under NARA Authority N1-311-08-1.
DHS/FEMA safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. FEMA has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individuals seeking access to and notification of any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the Chief Privacy Officer and Headquarters or FEMA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at
When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform to the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer,
• Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;
• Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;
• Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and
• Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;
If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records.
Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.
For records covered by the Privacy Act or covered JRA records, see “Record Access Procedures” above. For records not covered by the Privacy act or JRA covered records an applicant may call and connect directly with a live Human Services Specialist (HSS) to update the applicant's information.
See “Record Access Procedures.”
None.
79 FR 35366; 76 FR 8758.
Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.
60-day notice and request for comment.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science & Technology (S&T) Directorate invites the general public to comment on the DHS S&T Industry Outreach Information data collection forms for the Public-Private Partnerships (P3) who resides within the Research and Development Partnerships Group (RDP). S&T/RPD/P3 is responsible for coordinating the collection of Industry Information,. This authority charges the P3 Office with the collection of relevant information of companies, including their contact and product information. Any and all information provided by companies is completely voluntary; companies are not required to submit any requested information.
The DHS/S&T/RDP/P3 invites interested persons to comment on the following form and instructions for the S&T/RDP/PPP: DHS S&T Industry Outreach Information Form. Interested persons may receive a copy of the Forms by contacting the DHS S&T PRA Coordinator. This notice and request for comments is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 12, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-1640-NEW, by
•
•
•
•
S&T/RDP/PPP System Owner: Melanie Cummings (202) 254-5616 (Not a toll free number).
The information collected in this form is used by both DHS S&T RDP/P3 and R&D program managers in support of technology scouting and commercialization efforts, program formulation and planning, and investment decision making. Prior to making any investment decisions regarding R&D funding, DHS S&T conducts planning activities to not only determine the need for an R&D investment but also ensures awareness of all possible solutions to the operational challenge that requires the investment. Technology scouting and commercialization inform these planning activities by providing information on current industry capabilities. This information is gathered from a number of sources, including the information provided by companies on the Industry Outreach Form. P3, which operates under the authority in Title 6 of the U.S. Code, sec. 193, shares the information received from companies with R&D program managers, who may be able to apply a company's technical capabilities or technologies to their specific project or program.
The first page of the form requests basic contact information on a company, including business name; mailing address; point of contact name, title, and contact information; company Web site address; and the company classification (size, NAICS code, etc.). The form also requests information to help S&T assess and inform its industry outreach efforts, including how and where a company heard about S&T and any previous experiences working with S&T. The second page of the form requests information about the technical capabilities (technology or service) a company offers, including the current stage of the technology, its current technology and/or manufacturing readiness level, and why the capability is unique and valuable to DHS. All information requested in the form is
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
a.
b.
c.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Comments Due Date: September 12, 2017.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Kim Jakeway, Senior Housing Program Officer, Office of Outreach and Capacity Building, Office of Housing Counseling, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 3000 C Street, Suite 401, Anchorage, AK 99503;
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
Approximately 1,900 HUD-participating agencies provide housing counseling services nation-wide currently. Of these, approximately 920 have been directly approved by HUD. HUD maintains a list of these agencies so that individuals in need of assistance can easily access the nearest HUD-approved housing counseling agency via HUD's Web site, an automated 1-800 Hotline, or a smart phone application. HUD Form 9900, Application for Approval as a Housing Counseling Agency, is necessary to make sure that people who contact a HUD approved agency can have confidence they will receive quality service and these agencies meet HUD requirements for approval.
To participate in HUD's Housing Counseling Program, a housing counseling agency must first be approved by HUD. Approval entails meeting various requirements relating to experience and capacity, including nonprofit status, a minimum of one year of housing counseling experience in the target community, and sufficient resources to implement a housing counseling plan. Eligible organizations include local housing counseling agencies, private or public organizations (including grassroots, faith-based and other community-based organizations) such as nonprofit, state, or public housing authorities that meet the Program criteria. HUD uses form HUD-9900 to evaluate whether applying organizations meet minimum
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Daniel J. Sullivan, Acting Director, Office of Multifamily Production, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, email
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
John Lucey, Director, Asset Sales Office, Room 3136, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone 202-708-2625, extension 3927 or Kiara Griggs, Attorney, Office of Insured Housing, Multifamily Division, Room 9230; telephone 202-708-0614, extension 4797. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call 202-708-4594 (TTY). These are not toll-free numbers.
This notice informs the public that HUD is
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comments from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
To date, HUD has funded two other studies of the FSS program, but neither can tell us how well families would have done in the absence of the program. A random assignment model is needed because participant self-selection into FSS limits the ability to know whether program features rather than the characteristics of the participating families caused tenant income gains. Random assignment will limit the extent to which selection bias is driving observed results.
The demonstration underway will document the progress of a group of FSS participants from initial enrollment to program completion (or exit). The intent is to gain a deeper understanding of the program and illustrate strategies that assist participants to obtain greater economic independence. While the main objective of FSS is stable, suitable employment, there are many interim outcomes of interest, which include: getting a first job; getting a higher paying job; self-employment/small business ownership; no longer needing benefits provided under one or more welfare programs; obtaining additional education, whether in the form of a high school diploma, higher education degree, or vocational training; buying a home; buying a car; setting up savings accounts; or accomplishing similar goals that lead to economic independence.
Data for this evaluation are being gathered through a variety of methods including informational interviews and discussions, direct observation, and focus groups. The work covered under
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Justin D. Burch, Director, Quality Assurance Division, Office of Lender Activities and Program Compliance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room B133-P3214, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-1515 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Burch.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was initially published in the
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating a 5-year status review of the Aleutian shield fern under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any new information on these species that has become available since the last review, in 2005.
To ensure consideration of your comments in our preparation of this 5-year status review, we must receive your comments and information by September 12, 2017. However, we will accept information about any species at any time.
Please submit your information by any one of the following methods:
•
•
For more about submitting information, see Request for Information in the
Leah Kenney, Anchorage Fish and
We are initiating a 5-year status review under the ESA for the Aleutian shield fern (
Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting these reviews, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the listing determination or most recent status review, such as:
(1) The biology of the species, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
(2) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(3) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;
(4) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA); and
(5) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating the ongoing recovery programs for the species.
To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See What Information Do We Consider in Our Review? for specific criteria. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources. If you submit purported sightings of the species, please also provide supporting documentation in any form to the extent that it is available.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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.
A list of all completed and currently active 5-year reviews addressing species for which the Alaskan Region of the Service has lead responsibility is available at
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California State Office, Sacramento, California. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Forest Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by August 14, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the BLM, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825, upon required payment. Please use this address when filing written protests.
Jon Kehler, Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way W-1623, Sacramento, California 95825; 1-916-978-4323;
The lands surveyed are:
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey. A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest and must be filed with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey within 30 days after the protest is filed. If a protest against the survey is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed or otherwise resolved.
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 the BLM in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C., Chapter 3.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The surveys, which were executed at the request of the BLM, are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM by August 14, 2017.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the BLM, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Kyle Hensley, (503) 808-6132, Branch of Geographic Sciences, LM, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington, BLM. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of lands described in this notice are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana State Office, Billings, Montana, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Protests must be received by the BLM by August 14, 2017.
Protests of the survey should be sent to the Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669.
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana 59101-4669, telephone (406) 896-5124 or (406) 896-5009,
This survey was executed at the request of
The lands we surveyed are:
The plat, in two sheets, representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines, the original meanders of the former left bank of the Cheyenne River, through section 8, a portion of the subdivision of section 8, and the 1932 meanders of the former left bank of the Cheyenne River, through sections 7 and 8, the further subdivision of section 8, and the survey of the meanders of the present left bank of the Cheyenne River and informative traverse, through a portion of section 7 and section 8, the left and right banks and medial line of an abandoned channel of the Cheyenne River in section 8, the limits of erosion in section 8, a portion of the left bank of a relicted channel of the Cheyenne River in section 7, a former left bank of the Cheyenne River in section 8, and certain division of accretion and partition lines, Township 7 North, Range 21 East, of the Black Hills Meridian, South Dakota, was accepted April 26, 2017.
The BLM will place a copy of the plat, in two sheets, and related field notes described in the open files. They will be available to the public as a matter of information. If the BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on this plat, in two sheets, prior to the date of the official filing, the BLM will stay the filing pending its consideration of the protest. The BLM will not officially file this plat, in two sheets, until the day after it has accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions or appeals.
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a notice that they wish to protest with the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of the Record of Decision.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is announcing the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) that documents BOEM's decision to authorize the use of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) sand resources by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jacksonville District in the Martin County Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction (HSDR) Project, Hutchinson Island, Martin County, Florida. BOEM will enter into a negotiated agreement with the USACE and Martin County and make available OCS sand for use in the Martin County HSDR project.
The ROD is available at BOEM's Web site at
Jill Lewandowski, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Chief, Division of Environmental Assessment, Office of Environmental Programs, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM OEP, Sterling, VA 20166, (703) 787-1703;
The environmental impacts of dredging and the placement of OCS sand along the Martin County shoreline have been evaluated in several National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The most recent Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was prepared in 2011 by the USACE with BOEM as a cooperating agency. The SEIS tiered directly from the USACE 1986 Feasibility Report and Final EIS and 1994 General Design Memorandum and Environmental Assessment. These previous NEPA documents evaluated a suite of structural and non-structural alternatives to address HSDR needs in Martin County, Florida. In its February 2012 ROD, the Corps selected its preferred alternative to construct the Martin County HSDR Project, including use of OCS sand from the C1-B borrow area for the remaining life of the Federal project through 2046. A ROD was signed by BOEM in March 2012 for use of 1,000,000 cubic yards (CY) of OCS sand resources from C1-B to support nourishment of the Martin County project in 2012. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.9 and 43 CFR 46.120, BOEM has reviewed all existing NEPA documents and independently determined that existing environmental analyses adequately assess impacts of the proposed action. There are no changes to the proposed action, no new circumstances, and no new information that would result in significantly different environmental effects and warrant supplementation of the existing SEIS. The 2011 SEIS adequately assessed the physical, biological, and social/human impacts of the proposed project and considered a range of alternatives, including a no-action alternative.
The USACE Jacksonville District and Martin County Board of Commissioners (non-federal sponsor) have since requested that BOEM authorize the use of up to 1,000,000 CY of additional OCS sand resources from C1-B to support nourishment of the Martin County HSDR project. The project proponents propose to nourish a 4-mile stretch of Hutchinson Island, Florida, creating a sea-turtle friendly beach template using sand from shoal C1-B. BOEM and the USACE will enter into a negotiated agreement authorizing the use of up to 1,000,000 CY of OCS sand from the C1-B borrow area. This decision is for the authorization of the proposed use of OCS sand for the Martin County HSDR Project in 2017 and may also apply to future use of OCS sand resources if BOEM determines the existing NEPA analysis is still adequate and supplementation is not warranted. Under the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)), BOEM can convey, on a noncompetitive basis, the rights to use OCS sand, gravel, or shell resources for use in a program for shore protection, beach restoration, or coastal wetland restoration undertaken by a Federal, state, or local government agency (43 U.S.C. 1337(k)(2)).
The ROD discloses BOEM's decision, articulates the basis for the decision, summarizes the alternatives considered by BOEM, and identifies the
This Notice of Availability is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) implementing the provisions of the NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final Notice of Sale.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will open and publicly announce bids received for blocks offered in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Regionwide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249 (GOM Regionwide Sale 249), in accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), as amended, and the implementing regulations issued pursuant thereto. The GOM Regionwide Sale 249 Final Notice of Sale (NOS) package contains information essential to potential bidders.
Public bid reading for GOM Regionwide Sale 249 will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2017, at 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana. The venue will not be open to the general public, media, or industry. Instead, the bid opening will be available for public viewing on BOEM's Web site at
Interested parties may download the Final NOS package from BOEM's Web site at
Mailed bids should be addressed to: Attention: Leasing and Financial Responsibility Section, BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard WS-266A, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, noting: Contains Sealed Bids for GOM Regionwide Sale 249, Please deliver to Ms. Cindy Thibodeaux or Mr. Greg Purvis.
Geophysical Data and Information Statements (GDIS) must be submitted to: BOEM, Resource Studies, GM 881A, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, LA 70123-2304.
Dr. David Diamond, Chief, Leasing Division, 703-787-1776,
This Final NOS includes the following sections:
Whole and partial blocks that lie within the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (in the East and West Flower Garden Banks and the Stetson Bank), identified in the following list:
Blocks that are adjacent to or beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap:
All whole or partial blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432:
The following blocks, whose lease status is currently under appeal:
Each lease is issued pursuant to OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, and is subject to OCSLA implementing regulations promulgated pursuant thereto in 30 CFR part 556 and other applicable statutes and regulations in existence upon the effective date of the lease, as well as those applicable statutes enacted and regulations promulgated thereafter, except to the extent that the after-enacted statutes and regulations explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. Each lease is also subject to amendments to statutes and regulations, including but not limited to OCSLA, that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. The lessee expressly bears the risk that such new or amended statutes and regulations (
BOEM will use Form BOEM-2005 (February 2017) to convey leases resulting from this sale. This lease form may be viewed on BOEM's Web site at
The lease form will be amended to conform with the specific terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to the individual lease. The terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to this sale are set forth in the following table:
Primary Terms are summarized in the following table:
(1) The primary term for a lease in water depths less than 400 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS within the first 5 years of the lease, then the lessee may earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8 year primary term. The lessee will earn the 8 year lease term when the well is drilled to a target below 25,000 feet TVD SS, or the lessee may earn the 8 year primary term in cases where the well targets, but does not reach, a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS due to mechanical or safety reasons, where sufficient evidence is provided that it did not reach that target for reasons beyond the lessee's control.
In order to earn the 8 year extended primary term, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in any instance not more than 30 days after completion of the drilling operation, a letter providing the well number, spud date, information demonstrating a target below 25,000 TVD SS and whether that target was reached, and if applicable, any safety, mechanical, or other problems encountered that prevented the well from reaching a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS. This letter must request confirmation that the lessee earned the 8 year primary term. The extended primary term is not effective unless and until the lessee receives confirmation from BOEM.
The BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will confirm in writing, within 30 days of receiving the lessee's letter, whether the lessee has earned the extended primary term and update BOEM records accordingly.
A lessee that has earned the 8 year primary term by spudding a well with a hydrocarbon target below 25,000 feet TVD SS during the standard 5 year primary term of the lease will not be granted a suspension for that same period under the regulations at 30 CFR 250.175 because the lease is not at risk of expiring.
(2) The primary term for a lease in water depths ranging from 400 to less than 800 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well within the 5 year primary term of the lease, the lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8 year primary term.
In order to earn the 8 year primary term, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no case more than 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation that the lessee earned the 8 year extended primary term. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will provide written confirmation of whether the lessee has earned the extended primary term and update BOEM records accordingly.
(3) The standard primary term for a lease in water depths ranging from 800 to less than 1,600 meters issued as a result of this sale is 7 years. If the lessee spuds a well within the standard 7 year primary term, the lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in a 10 year extended primary term.
In order to earn the 10 year primary term, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no case more than 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation that the lessee earned the 10 year primary term. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the BOEM GOM Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will
(4) The primary term for a lease in water depths 1,600 meters or greater issued as a result of this sale will be 10 years.
• $25.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters; and
• $100.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.
BOEM will not accept a bonus bid unless it provides for a cash bonus in an amount equal to, or exceeding, the specified minimum bid of $25.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters, and $100.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.
Annual rental rates are summarized in the following table:
Any lessee with a lease in less than 400 meters water depth who earns an 8 year primary term will pay an escalating rental rate as shown above. The rental rates after the fifth year for blocks in less than 400 meters water depth will become fixed and no longer escalate, if another well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS after the fifth year of the lease, and BOEM concurs that such a well has been spudded. In this case, the rental rate will become fixed at the rental rate in effect during the lease year in which the additional well was spudded.
• 12.5% for leases situated in water depths less than 200 meters.
• 18.75% for leases situated in water depths of 200 meters and deeper.
• $7.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths less than 200 meters; and
• $11.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths 200 meters or deeper.
The issuance of leases with Royalty Suspension Volumes (RSVs) or other forms of royalty relief is authorized under existing BOEM regulations at 30 CFR part 560. The specific details relating to eligibility and implementation of the various royalty relief programs, including those involving the use of RSVs, are codified in Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) regulations at 30 CFR part 203.
In this sale, the only royalty relief program being offered that involves the provision of RSVs relates to the drilling of ultra-deep wells in water depths of less than 400 meters, as described in the following section.
Leases issued as a result of this sale may be eligible for RSV incentives on gas produced from ultra-deep wells pursuant to 30 CFR part 203. These regulations implement the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 13201
Consistent with the Record of Decision for the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2022 Five Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Stipulation No. 5 (Topographic Features) and Stipulation No. 8 (Live Bottom) will apply to every lease sale in the GOM Program Area. One or more of the remaining eight stipulations will be applied to leases issued as a result of this sale, on applicable blocks as identified on the map “Final, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Regionwide Lease Sale 249, August 16, 2017, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks” included in the Final Notice of Sale package. The detailed text of the following stipulations is contained in the “Lease Stipulations” section of the Final NOS package.
Information to Lessees (ITLs) provides detailed information on certain issues pertaining to specific oil and gas lease sales. The detailed text of the ITLs for this sale is contained in the “Information to Lessees” section of the Final NOS package.
The maps pertaining to this lease sale may be viewed on BOEM's Web site at
The lease terms and economic conditions associated with leases of certain blocks are shown on the map entitled, “Final, Gulf of Mexico Regionwide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249, August 16, 2017, Lease Terms and Economic Conditions.”
The blocks to which one or more lease stipulations will apply are shown on the map entitled, “Final, Gulf of Mexico Regionwide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 249, August 16, 2017, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks Map.”
Bids may be submitted in person or by mail at the addresses in the
For each block bid upon, a separate sealed bid must be submitted in a sealed envelope (as described below) and include the following:
• Total amount of the bid in whole dollars only;
• Sale number;
• Sale date;
• Each bidder's exact name;
• Each bidder's proportionate interest, stated as a percentage, using a maximum of five decimal places (
• Typed name and title, and signature of each bidder's authorized officer;
• Each bidder's qualification number;
• Map name and number or Official Protraction Diagram (OPD) name and number;
• Block number; and
• Statement acknowledging that the bidder(s) understand that this bid legally binds the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including a deposit in the amount of one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for any tract bid upon and payment of the balance of the bonus bid upon BOEM's acceptance of high bids.
The information required on the bid(s) is specified in the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS package. A blank bid form is provided in the Final NOS package for convenience and may be copied and completed with the necessary information described above.
Each bid must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled as follows:
• “Sealed Bid for GOM Regionwide Sale 249, not to be opened until 9 a.m. Wednesday, August 16, 2017;”
• Map name and number or OPD name and number;
• Block number for block bid upon; and
• The exact name and qualification number of the submitting bidder only.
The Final NOS package includes a sample bid envelope for reference.
If bids are mailed, please address the envelope containing the sealed bid envelope(s) as follows:
Bidders that are not currently an OCS oil and gas lease record title holder or designated operator, or those that ever have defaulted on a one-fifth bonus bid deposit, by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or otherwise, must guarantee (secure) the payment of the one-fifth bonus bid deposit prior to bid submission using one of the following four methods:
• Provide a third-party guarantee;
• Amend an area-wide development bond via bond rider;
• Provide a letter of credit; or
• Provide a lump sum payment in advance via EFT.
Prior to bidding, each bidder should file the Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Representation Form BOEM-2032 (October 2011,
The GDIS is composed of three parts:
(1) The “Statement” page includes the company representatives' information and lists of blocks bid on that used proprietary data and those blocks bid on that did not use proprietary data;
(2) The “Table” listing the required data about each proprietary survey used (see below); and
(3) The “Maps” being the live trace maps for each survey that are identified in the GDIS statement and table.
Every bidder submitting a bid on a block in GOM Regionwide Sale 249, or participating as a joint bidder in such a bid, must submit at the time of bid submission all three parts of the GDIS. A bidder must submit the GDIS
The GDIS must be submitted in a separate and sealed envelope, and must identify all proprietary data; reprocessed speculative data, and/or any Controlled Source Electromagnetic surveys, Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO), Gravity, or Magnetic data; or other information used as part of the decision to bid or participate in a bid on the block. The bidder and joint bidder must also include a live trace map (
The GDIS statement must include the name, phone number, and full address of a contact person and an alternate who are both knowledgeable about the information and data listed and who are available for 30 days after the sale date. The GDIS statement also must include a list of all blocks bid upon that did not use proprietary or reprocessed pre- or post-stack geophysical data and information as part of the decision to bid or to participate as a joint bidder in the bid. The GDIS statement must be submitted even if no proprietary geophysical data and information were used in bid preparation for the block.
The GDIS table should have columns that clearly state:
• The sale number;
• The bidder company's name;
• The block area and block number bid on;
• The owner of the original data set (
• The industry's original name of the survey (
• The BOEM permit number for the survey;
• Whether the data set is a fast track version;
• Whether the data is speculative or proprietary;
• The data type (
• The Migration algorithm (
• The computer storage size, to the nearest gigabyte, of each seismic data and velocity volume used to evaluate the lease block; and
• Who reprocessed and the data when the date of final reprocessing was completed (month and year).
The computer storage size information will be used in estimating the reproduction costs for each data set, if applicable. The availability of reimbursement of production costs will be determined consistent with 30 CFR 551.13.
If the data was sent to BOEM for bidding in a previous lease sale, list the date the data was processed (month and year) and indicate if AVO data was used in the evaluation. BOEM reserves the right to query about alternate data sets, to quality check, and to compare the listed and alternative data sets to determine which data set most closely meets the needs of the fair market value determination process. An example of the preferred format of the table is included in the Final NOS package, and a blank digital version of the preferred table can be accessed on the GOM Regionwide Sale 249 Web page at
The GDIS maps are live trace maps (in .pdf and ArcGIS shape files) that should be submitted for each proprietary survey that is identified in the GDIS table. They should illustrate the actual areal extent of the proprietary geophysical data in the survey (see the “Example of Preferred Format” in the Final NOS package for additional information). As previously stated, the shape file should not include cultural information; only the live trace map of the survey itself. Pursuant to 30 CFR 551.12 and 30 CFR 556.501, as a condition of the sale, the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD requests that all bidders and joint bidders submit the proprietary data identified on their GDIS within 30 days after the lease sale (unless they are notified after the lease sale that BOEM has withdrawn the request). This request only pertains to proprietary data that is not commercially available. Commercially available data is not required to be submitted to BOEM, and reimbursement will not be provided if such data is submitted by a bidder. The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD will notify bidders and joint bidders of any withdrawal of the request, for all or some of the proprietary data identified on the GDIS, within 15 days of the lease sale. Pursuant to 30 CFR part 551 and 30 CFR 556.501, as a condition of this sale, all bidders that are required to submit data must ensure that the data is received by BOEM no later than the 30th day following the lease sale, or the next business day if the submission deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday.
The data must be submitted to BOEM at the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Resource Studies, GM 881A, 1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70123-2304.
BOEM recommends that bidders mark the submission's external envelope as “Deliver Immediately to DASPU.” BOEM also recommends that the data be submitted in an internal envelope, or otherwise marked, with the following designation: “Proprietary Geophysical Data Submitted Pursuant to GOM Regionwide Sale 249 and used during <Bidder Name's> evaluation of Block <Block Number>.”
In the event a person supplies any type of data to BOEM, that person must meet the following requirements to qualify for reimbursement:
(1) The person must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM), formerly known as the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). CCR usernames will not work in SAM. A new SAM User Account is needed to register or update an entity's records. The Web site for registering is
(2) The persons must be enrolled in the Department of the Treasury's Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) for electronic invoicing. The person must enroll in the IPP at
(3) The persons must have a current On-line Representations and Certifications Application at
Bidders should refer to Section X of this document, “The Lease Sale: Acceptance, Rejection, or Return of Bids,” regarding a bidder's failure to comply with the requirements of the Final NOS, including any failure to submit information as required in the Final NOS or Final NOS package.
BOEM requests that bidders provide this information in the suggested format prior to or at the time of bid submission. The suggested format is included in the Final NOS package. The form must not be enclosed inside the sealed bid envelope.
BOEM may require bidders to submit other documents in accordance with 30 CFR 556.107, 30 CFR 556.401, 30 CFR 556.501, and 30 CFR 556.513.
On April 28, 2017, BOEM published the most recent List of Restricted Joint Bidders in the
All signatories executing documents on behalf of bidder(s) must execute the same in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Bidders are advised that BOEM considers the signed bid to be a legally binding obligation on the part of the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid on all high bids. A statement to this effect is included on each bid form (see the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS package).
BOEM warns bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. 1860, prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders.
Bids may be withdrawn only by written request delivered to BOEM prior to the Bid Submission Deadline. The withdrawal request must be on company letterhead and must contain the bidder's name, its BOEM qualification number, the map name/number, and the block number(s) of the bid(s) to be withdrawn. The withdrawal request must be executed in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Signatories must be authorized to bind their respective legal business entity (
Minimum bonus bid calculations, including rounding, for all blocks are shown in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing” included in the Final NOS package. The bonus bid amount must be stated in whole dollars. If the acreage of a block contains a decimal figure, then prior to calculating the minimum bonus bid, BOEM will round up to the next whole acre. The appropriate minimum rate per acre will then be applied to the whole (rounded up) acreage. If this calculation results in a fractional dollar amount, the minimum bonus bid will be rounded up to the next whole dollar amount. The bonus bid amount must be greater than or equal to the minimum bonus bid in whole dollars.
The Final NOS package includes instructions, samples, and/or the preferred format for the following items. BOEM strongly encourages bidders to use these formats. Should bidders use another format, they are responsible for including all the information specified for each item in the Final NOS package.
Sealed bids received in response to the Final NOS will be opened at the place, date, and hour specified under the “DATES” section of this Final NOS. The venue will not be open to the public. Instead, the bid opening will be available for the public to view on BOEM's Web site at
Each bidder submitting an apparent high bid must submit a bonus bid deposit to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) equal to one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for each such bid. A copy of the notification of the high bidder's one-fifth bonus bid amount may be obtained on the BOEM Web site at
BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures for payment of one-fifth bonus bid deposits for GOM Regionwide Sale 249 following the detailed instructions contained on the ONRR Payment Information Web page at
The United States reserves the right to withdraw any block from this lease sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid for the block.
The United States reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bid will be accepted, and no lease for any block will be awarded to any bidder, unless:
(1) The bidder has complied with all requirements of the Final NOS, including those set forth in the documents contained in the Final NOS package, and applicable regulations;
(2) The bid is the highest valid bid; and
(3) The amount of the bid has been determined to be adequate by the authorized officer.
Any bid submitted that does not conform to the requirements of the Final NOS and Final NOS package, OCSLA, or other applicable statute or regulation will be rejected and returned to the bidder. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will review the results of the lease sale for antitrust issues prior to the acceptance of bids and issuance of leases.
To ensure that the U.S. Government receives a fair return for the conveyance of leases from this sale, high bids will be evaluated in accordance with BOEM's bid adequacy procedures, which are available at
BOEM requires each bidder awarded a lease to:
(1) Execute all copies of the lease (Form BOEM-2005 (February 2017), as amended);
(2) Pay by EFT the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental for each lease issued in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 218.155 and 556.520(a); and
(3) Satisfy the bonding requirements of 30 CFR part 556, subpart I, as amended. ONRR requests that only one transaction be used for payment of the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental.
The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD has the discretion to change any date, time, and/or location specified in the Final NOS package in the case of an event that the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD deems may interfere with the carrying out of a fair and orderly lease sale process. Such events could include, but are not limited to, natural disasters (
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice of availability of a Record of Decision.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is announcing the availability of a Record of Decision for proposed Gulf of Mexico (GOM) regionwide oil and gas Lease Sale 249. This Record of Decision identifies BOEM's selected alternative for proposed Lease Sale 249, which is analyzed in the
The Record of Decision and associated information are available on BOEM's Web site at
For more information on the Record of Decision, you may contact Mr. Greg Kozlowski, Deputy Regional Supervisor, Office of Environment, by telephone at 504-736-2512 or by email at
In the GOM Multisale EIS, BOEM evaluated five alternatives that are summarized below in regards to proposed Lease Sale 249:
A total of 207 blocks within the CPA and 160 blocks in the WPA are affected
The additional eight lease stipulations for proposed regionwide Lease Sale 249 are the Military Areas Stipulation; the Evacuation Stipulation; the Coordination Stipulation; the Blocks South of Baldwin County, Alabama, Stipulation; the Protected Species Stipulation; the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Royalty Payment Stipulation; the Below Seabed Operations Stipulation; and the Stipulation on the Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. These 10 stipulations will be added as lease terms where applicable and will be enforceable as part of the lease. Appendix B of the GOM Multisale EIS provides a list and description of standard postlease conditions of approval that may be required by BOEM or the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement as a result of plan and permit review processes for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.
After careful consideration, BOEM has selected the preferred alternative (Alternative A) in the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS for proposed Lease Sale 249. BOEM's selection of the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need for the proposed action, as identified in the GOM Multisale EIS, and reflects an orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments while also ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for these resources and that free-market competition is maintained.
This notice of availability of a Record of Decision is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1505) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions from the public on any public interest issues raised by the recommended relief. The ALJ recommended that a limited exclusion order issue against certain semiconductor devices, semiconductor device packages, and products containing the same, imported by respondents Broadcom Limited of Singapore and Broadcom Corp. of Irvine, California (collectively, “Broadcom”), as well as the following named respondents who import products containing Broadcom's semiconductor devices: Arista Networks, Inc. of Santa Clara, California; ARRIS International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS Solutions, Inc., ARRIS Enterprises, and Pace Ltd., all of Suwanee, Georgia, as well as Pace Americas LLC and Pace USA LLC, both of Boca Raton, Florida, and ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, Pennsylvania (collectively “ARRIS”); ASUSTek Computer, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan, and ASUS Computer International of Fremont, California (collectively, “ASUS”); Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, and Comcast Business Communications, LLC, each of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Comcast”); HTC Corporation of Taoyuan, Taiwan, and HTC America Inc. of Bellevue, Washington (collectively, “HTC”); NETGEAR, Inc. of San Jose, California; Technicolor S.A. of Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France, as well as Technicolor USA, Inc. and Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC, both of Indianapolis, Indiana (collectively, “Technicolor”). The ALJ also recommended that cease and desist orders be directed to these respondents. This Notice is for public statements only.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-2532. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation, including the complaint and the public record, can be accessed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in these investigations. Accordingly, members of the public are invited to file, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4), submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's recommended determination on remedy and bonding issued in this investigation on June 30, 2017. Comments should address whether issuance of the limited exclusion order and the cease and desist orders (“the recommended remedial orders”) in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended remedial orders;
(iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) Indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) Explain how the recommended remedial orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to section 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 972”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when agencies no longer need them for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the
NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by August 14, 2017. Once NARA finishes appraising the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.
You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:
You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.
Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA), National Archives
NARA publishes notice in the
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing records retention periods and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the agency to dispose of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it creates or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is expressly limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without Archivist of the United States' approval. The Archivist approves destruction only after thoroughly considering the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.
In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records (or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability when schedules cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.
1. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0022, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to routine acreage determinations, including correspondence and completed forms.
2. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (DAA-0145-2017-0023, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records related to the Civil Rights Program, including general correspondence, reports, evaluations, plans, and discrimination complaints.
3. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2017-0002, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains laboratory requests and processes inspections.
4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (DAA-AU-2017-0003, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master files of an electronic information system that contains maintenance and system usage information on ground and air vehicles.
5. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2015-0013, 11 items, 11 temporary items). Records related to detainees, including incidents of sexual abuse and assault, escapes, deaths while in agency custody, telephone rates charged to detainees, alternatives to detention, logs and reports on status of detainees and detention facilities, and location and segregation of detainees.
6. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (DAA-0058-2017-0009, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records of the Small Business and Self-Employed Collections Division including referrals from taxpayers of alleged violations in which no further action is taken.
7. General Services Administration, Agency-wide (DAA-0269-2016-0006, 7 items, 4 temporary items). Program management records including internal program case files, management reports and supplementary materials, and routine program records. Proposed for permanent retention are management decisions, issuances, and directives, significant reports and studies, and strategic evaluation and planning records.
10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Open.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
3:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 19, 2017.
Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.
Closed.
Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Notice of rescheduling of teleconference.
ONDCP is issuing this notice to advise the public that the Commission is rescheduling the teleconference of the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis that was previously scheduled for Monday, July 17th at 4 p.m. EST. The purpose of the meeting is to review a draft interim report that will be posted on ONDCP's Commission Web site listed below before the teleconference.
The teleconference will be held on Monday, July 31st at 4 p.m. EST.
There will be no physical address. The public may call (800) 260-0718 (Access Code 426289) to listen. Please call five minutes before the start time. If you are part of an organization, please try to consolidate use to as few lines as possible.
General information concerning the Commission and its meetings can be found on ONDCP's Web site at
The Commission was established in accordance with E.O. 13784 of March 29, 2017, the Commission's charter, and the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to obtain advice and recommendations for the President regarding drug issues. The Executive Order, charter, and information on the Members of the Commission are available on ONDCP's Web site. The Commission will function solely as an advisory body and will make recommendations regarding policies and practices for combating drug addiction with particular focus on the current opioid crisis in the United States. The Commission's final report is due October 1, 2017 unless there is an extension. Per E.O. 13784, the Commission shall:
a. Identify and describe the existing Federal funding used to combat drug addiction and the opioid crisis;
b. Assess the availability and accessibility of drug addiction treatment services and overdose reversal throughout the country and identify areas that are underserved;
c. Identify and report on best practices for addiction prevention, including healthcare provider education and evaluation of prescription practices, collaboration between State and Federal officials, and the use and effectiveness of State prescription drug monitoring programs;
d. Review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of educational messages for youth and adults with respect to prescription and illicit opioids;
e. Identify and evaluate existing Federal programs to prevent and treat drug addiction for their scope and effectiveness, and make recommendations for improving these programs; and;
f. Make recommendations to the President for improving the Federal response to drug addiction and the opioid crisis.
Weeks of July 17, 24, 31, August 7, 14, 21, 2017.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 17, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 24, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of July 31, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 7, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 14, 2017.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 21, 2017.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Denise McGovern at 301-415-0681 or via email at
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Members of the public may request to receive this information electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or email
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing final NUREG-2191, “Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report,” Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, and NUREG-2192, “Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants” (SRP-SLR). These final documents describe methods acceptable to the NRC staff for granting a subsequent license renewal in accordance with the license renewal regulations, as well as techniques that will be used by the NRC staff in evaluating applications for subsequent license renewal.
July 14, 2017.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0251 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Bennett Brady, telephone: 301-415-2981, email:
The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, authorizes the NRC to issue 40-year initial licenses and upon application and approval, subsequently renew licenses for nuclear power reactors. The NRC's regulations permit these licenses to be renewed beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period of time, limited to 20-year increments per renewal, based on the outcome of an assessment to determine if the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the period of extended operation. There are no limitations in the AEA or the NRC's regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.
The nuclear power industry has sent letters of intent to apply for subsequent license renewals in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Subsequent License Renewal is a term referring to all license renewals allowing a plant to operate beyond the 60-year period (40-year of an initial operating license and a 20-year period of the first license renewal). Based on a survey conducted by the nuclear power industry and provided to the NRC, the NRC staff believes that additional applications for subsequent license renewal will be submitted in future years.
The NRC developed guidance for licensees that intend to apply for subsequent license renewal. The guidance documents for first license renewal (
A notice of availability, requesting comment on the draft Guidance Documents was published in the
This NUREG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Valerie J. Pelton, 202-268-3049.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on July 10, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715(b)(3) to specify an exception to the manner in which Immediate-or-Cancel Orders will be handled by the System when entered through the Specialized Quote Feed
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange is proposing to amend MRX Rule 715(b)(3) to specify the manner in which an Immediate-or-Cancel Order will interact with certain order protections when entered through SQF. An Immediate-or-Cancel Order is defined as a limit order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is to be treated as cancelled.
With the introduction of SQF, the Exchange proposes to amend MRX Rule 715(b)(3) to state that an Immediate-or-Cancel order entered by a Market Maker through SQF will not be subject to the Limit Order Price Protection and Size Limitation Protection as defined in MRX Rule 714(b)(2) and (3). All other Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered through FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise will continue to be subject to these protections.
MRX Rule 714, entitled “Automatic Execution of Orders,” contains a section (b)(2) and (3) which applies to order protections that are automatically enforced by the System. The Limit Order Price Protection sets a limit on the amount by which incoming limit orders to buy may be priced above the Exchange's best offer and by which incoming limit orders to sell may be priced below the Exchange's best bid. Limit orders that exceed the pricing limit are rejected.
MRX Rule 714(b)(3) provides a protection for size limitation. The System limits the number of contracts an incoming order may specify. Orders that exceed the maximum number of contracts are rejected.
The Exchange intends to begin implementation of the proposed rule change in Q3 2017. The MRX migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis as specified in an alert to Members that will be issued by the Exchange in the form of an Options Trader Alert. The alert will provide the dates that symbols will migrate to INET.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With the adoption of the SQF protocol on INET, the Exchange will offer Market Makers the ability to expeditiously submit Immediate-or-Cancel orders through SQF, without having to involve a different protocol and method of entry such as FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise. With the ability for Market Makers to utilize the SQF protocol to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, in addition to having the ability to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders on FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise, similar to other market participants, Market Makers may submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders into SQF allowing them to manage risk utilizing a single protocol, SQF.
Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide liquidity to the market and are subject to certain obligations, including a requirement to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”) utilizes its MIAX Express Interface (MEI), a quoting interface, for market makers to enter immediate-or-cancel orders.
Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on MRX and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error from [sic] being entered. The Exchange believes that Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk when submitting Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these participants. If Market Makers desire the Limit Order Protections and the Size Limitation Protections, they may utilize the FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise protocols for entering their orders. The Exchange notes that Market Makers on Phlx may enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and are similarly not subject to certain risk protections today.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on MRX and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error from [sic] being entered. Market Makers also transact a large amount of orders on the Exchange and bring liquidity to the market. Market Makers should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these members that are not applicable to other market participants. The Exchange therefore believes that this rule change will not impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 16, 2017, NYSE MKT LLC. (“NYSE MKT” 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” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to make changes to the Priority Customer
Currently, the Exchange charges a taker fee for regular orders in Select Symbols that is $0.44 per contract for Market Maker
The Exchange now proposes to further reduce the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in SPY from $0.35 per contract to $0.30 per contract. The Exchange also proposes to reduce the Priority Customer taker fee for QQQ, IWM and VXX from $0.40 per contract to $0.35 per contract. SPY, QQQ, IWM and VXX are some of the most actively traded names on the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that this reduction in fees will attract Priority Customer orders in those symbols to ISE. Finally, the Exchange proposes to increase the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in all other Select Symbols from $0.40 per contract to $0.44 per contract.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to reduce the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in SPY, QQQ, IWM and VXX as the proposed fees are more favorable than those currently offered on the Exchange. The Exchange is targeting SPY, QQQ, IWM and VXX for this change as these are some of the most actively traded symbols on ISE. With this change, the Exchange will charge lower taker fees for Priority Customer orders in SPY, QQQ, IWM and VXX, thereby attracting additional order flow in these symbols to the benefit of all members that trade on the Exchange. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer this reduced taker fee to Priority Customer orders. A Priority Customer is by definition not a broker or dealer in securities, and does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). This limitation does not apply to participants on the Exchange whose behavior is substantially similar to that of market professionals, including Professional Customers, who will generally submit a higher number of orders than Priority Customers.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to increase the Priority Customer taker fee for regular orders in all other Select Symbols because the proposed fees will remain lower or be equal to other market participants that remove liquidity on the Exchange. In addition, the proposed increase will be offset by the lower taker fees proposed for Priority Customer orders in SPY, QQQ, IWM and VXX, which as noted above are some of the most actively traded names on ISE. The Exchange also notes that the increased fees proposed herein are still lower than the level of fees charged by one of the Exchange's competitors.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 715(b)(3) to specify an exception to the manner in which Immediate-or-Cancel Orders are handled by the System when entered through the Specialized Quote Feed
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing to amend GEMX Rule 715(b)(3) to specify the manner in which an Immediate-or-Cancel Order interacts with certain order protections when entered through SQF. An Immediate-or-Cancel Order is defined as a limit order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt. Any portion not so executed is to be treated as cancelled.
The Exchange proposes to amend GEMX Rule 715(b)(3) to clearly provide that, today, an Immediate-or-Cancel order entered by a Market Maker through SQF is not subject to the Limit Order Price Protection and Size Limitation Protection as defined in GEMX Rule 714(b)(2) and (3). All other Immediate-or-Cancel Orders entered through FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise continue to be subject to these protections as was the case prior to the migration.
GEMX Rule 714, entitled “Automatic Execution of Orders,” contains a section (b)(2) and (3) which applies to order protections that are automatically enforced by the System. The Limit Order Price Protection sets a limit on the amount by which incoming limit orders to buy may be priced above the Exchange's best offer and by which incoming limit orders to sell may be priced below the Exchange's best bid. Limit orders that exceed the pricing limit are rejected.
GEMX Rule 714(b)(3) provides a protection for size limitation. The System limits the number of contracts an incoming order may specify. Orders that exceed the maximum number of contracts are rejected.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
With the adoption of the SQF protocol on INET, the Exchange offered Market Makers the ability to expeditiously submit Immediate-or-Cancel orders through SQF, without having to involve a different protocol and method of entry such as FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise. With the ability for Market Makers to utilize the SQF protocol to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, in addition to having the ability to enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders on FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise, similar to other market participants, Market Makers are able to submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders into SQF allowing them to manage risk utilizing a single protocol, SQF.
Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide liquidity to the market and are subject to certain obligations, including a requirement to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis.
Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (“MIAX”) utilizes its MIAX Express Interface (MEI), a quoting interface, for market makers to enter immediate-or-cancel orders.
Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on GEMX and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error from [sic] being entered. The Exchange believes that Market Makers, unlike other market participants, have the ability to manage their risk when submitting Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these participants. If Market Makers desire the Limit Order Protections and the Size Limitation Protections, they may utilize the FIX, OTTO or Nasdaq Precise protocols for entering their orders. The Exchange notes that Market Makers on Phlx may enter Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF and are similarly not subject to certain risk protections today.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Market Makers handle a large amount of risk when quoting on GEMX and in addition to the risk protections required by the Exchange, Market Makers utilize their own risk management parameters when entering orders, minimizing the likelihood of a Market Maker order resulting from an error being entered. Market Makers also transact a large amount of orders on the Exchange and bring liquidity to the market. Market Makers should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, particularly in light of the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange imposes on these members that are not applicable to other market participants. The Exchange therefore believes that this rule change will not impose an undue burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange has stated that it is requesting this waiver to specify that when Market Makers submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF, the Limit Order Price Protection in GEMX Rule 714(b)(2) and the Size Limitation Protection in GEMX Rule 714(b)(3) do not apply to those orders. The Exchange believes that Market Makers should be permitted to elect this method of order entry to obtain efficiency and speed of order entry, due to the continuous quoting obligations the Exchange places on Market Makers, unlike other market participants. Additionally the Exchange believes that Market Makers have the ability to manage their own risk when submitting Immediate-or-Cancel Orders through SQF. The Exchange represents that it will continue to assess the risk protections that are applied to orders and will file to adopt additional risk protections if it determines that such additional protections are appropriate in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.
The Commission believes that waiver the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because this waiver will enable the Exchange to permit Market Makers to utilize the SQF protocol to submit Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, thereby allowing Market Makers to manage their risk through a single protocol for entering orders and quotations and comply with their continuous quoting requirements. The Commission notes that Market Makers are sophisticated market participants that have alternative methods to manage risk and that the Exchange will continue to assess the need for additional risk protections that may be appropriate, including for Immediate-or-Cancel Orders submitted through SQF. For this reason, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 16, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” 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” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to eliminate fees and rebates for trades in iKang Healthcare Group Inc (“KANG”) executed on June 27-30, 2017.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of Fees to eliminate fees and rebates for trades in KANG executed on June 27-30, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to eliminate fees and rebates in KANG during the initial launch of the Exchange's re-platformed trading system. Eliminating fees and rebates in this symbol during the launch will simplify the Exchange's billing and serve as an inducement for members to trade the first symbols migrated to the INET trading system. Because the Exchange is offering free executions in this symbol, volume executed in KANG on June 27-30, 2017 will not be counted towards any volume based tiers. Similar treatment was afforded to the first symbol launched on the Nasdaq GEMX, LLC INET trading system,
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 16, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” 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” or “Exchange Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change would establish the procedures for resolving potential disputes related to CAT Fees charged to Industry Members.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
WRL, LLC (WRL), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to assume operations over 34.6 miles of rail line (the Line) between milepost 33C north of Rainier, Thurston County, Wash., and milepost 67.6 south of Chehalis, Lewis County, Wash.
WRL states that Western Washington Railroad, LLC (WWRR) currently operates the Line pursuant to a lease.
WRL states that it has reached an agreement with WWRR for WRL to replace WWRR as the exclusive operator of the Line upon the effective date of the notice.
WRL states that the proposed change in operator does not involve any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. WRL certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class I rail carrier.
Under 49 CFR. 1150.42(b), a change in operator requires that notice be given to shippers. WRL certifies that it has
The earliest this transaction can be consummated is July 30, 2017, the effective date of the exemption.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than July 21, 2017 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36132, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on James H.M. Savage, 22 Rockingham Court, Germantown, MD 20874.
Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of country-by-country allocations of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (October 1, 2017 through Sept. 30, 2018) in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quotas for imported raw cane sugar, certain sugars, syrups and molasses (also known as refined sugar), specialty sugar, and sugar-containing products.
This notice is effective on July 14, 2017.
Ronald Baumgarten, Office of Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395-9583 or
Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the United States maintains tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for imports of raw cane sugar and refined sugar. Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 8 to Chapter 17 of the HTS, the United States maintains a TRQ for imports of sugar-containing products.
Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas. The President delegated this authority to the United States Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007).
On June 30, 2017, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) announced the sugar program provisions for FY2018.
USTR based these allocations on the countries' historical shipments to the United States. The allocations of the in-quota quantities of the raw cane sugar TRQ to countries that are net importers of sugar are conditioned on receipt of the appropriate verifications of origin, and certificates for quota eligibility must accompany imports from any country for which an allocation has been provided.
On June 30, 2017, the Secretary also announced the establishment of the in-quota quantity of the FY2018 refined sugar TRQ at 182,000 MTRV for which the sucrose content, by weight in the dry state, must have a polarimeter reading of 99.5 degrees or more. This amount includes the minimum level to which the United States is committed under the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements (22,000 MTRV of which 1,656 MTRV is reserved for specialty sugar) and an additional 160,000 MTRV for specialty sugars. USTR is allocating the refined sugar TRQ as follows: 10,300 MTRV of refined sugar to Canada, 2,954 MTRV to Mexico, and 7,090 MTRV to be administered on a first-come, first-served basis.
Imports of all specialty sugar will be administered on a first-come, first-served basis in five tranches. The Secretary has announced that the total in-quota quantity of specialty sugar will be the 1,656 MTRV included in the WTO minimum plus an additional 160,000 MTRV. The first tranche of 1,656 MTRV will open on October 2, 2017. All types of specialty sugars are eligible for entry under this tranche. The second tranche of 48,000 MTRV will open on October 18, 2017. The third tranche of 48,000 MTRV will open on January 23, 2018. The fourth and fifth tranches of 32,000 MTRV each will open on April 17, 2018 and July 17, 2018, respectively. The second, third, fourth and fifth tranches will be reserved for organic sugar and other specialty sugars not currently produced commercially in the United States or reasonably available from domestic sources.
With respect to the in-quota quantity of 64,709 MTRV of the TRQ for imports
Raw cane sugar, refined and specialty sugar and sugar-containing products for FY2018 TRQs may enter the United States as of October 2, 2017.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petition for exemption received.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before August 3, 2017.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0613 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Renton, Washington.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security Plenary.
The meeting will be held July 24-28, 2017, 09:00 a.m.-05:00 p.m. All times are Central European Summer Time (UTC+2).
The meeting will be held at: Airbus Training Center, Hein-Saß-Weg 31, 21129 Hamburg (Finkenwerder), Germany.
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 Thirty Third RTCA SC-216 Aeronautical Systems Security 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,
Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this provides the public notice that on June 22, 2017, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver from compliance with certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 238,
Amtrak awarded a contract to car builder Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF) on August 23, 2010 for a fleet of 130 Long Distance Single Level (LDSL) passenger cars, composed of four car types. The contract presently calls for delivery of 70 baggage cars (61000 series) and 10 baggage-crew dormitory cars (69000 series) for Amtrak crew use, 25 dining cars (68000 series), and 25 sleeping cars (62500 series).
Amtrak requests relief for the LDSL passenger cars from the requirements of 49 CFR 238.131(b),
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 28, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if as practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on May 2, 2017, the Steelton and Highspire Railroad (SH) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 229.123,
SH requests relief from the requirement to equip locomotives with a pilot, snowplow, or end plate that measures 3 to 6 inches above the rail per the requirements of 49 CFR 229.123. SH is a terminal and switching railroad serving the ArcelorMittal steel plant located in Steelton, PA, performing yard switching service and interchange service with Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway. SH operates within the confines of the steel plant except for the interchange of cars with NS in a yard immediately adjacent to the plant boundary. Locomotive movements are limited to a maximum speed of 10 mph. SH operates six switcher locomotives, and has operated with such a waiver since February 1981. During that time, there have been no incidents related to the absence of end plates.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Communications received by August 28, 2017 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(a)(2), that a meeting will be held at the Hay-Adams Hotel, 16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, on August 1, 2017 at 11:15 a.m. of the following debt management advisory committee: Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee of The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
The agenda for the meeting provides for a charge by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designate that the Committee discuss particular issues and conduct a working session. Following the working session, the Committee will present a written report of its recommendations. The meeting will be closed to the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d) and Public Law 103-202, Sec. 202(c)(1)(B) (31 U.S.C. Sec. 3121 note).
This notice shall constitute my determination, pursuant to the authority placed in heads of agencies by 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d) and vested in me by Treasury Department Order No. 101-05, that the meeting will consist of discussions and debates of the issues presented to the Committee by the Secretary of the Treasury and the making of recommendations of the Committee to the Secretary, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, Sec. 202(c)(1)(B). Thus, this information is exempt from disclosure under that provision and 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(3)(B). In addition, the meeting is concerned with information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(9)(A). The public interest requires that such meetings be closed to the public because the Treasury Department requires frank and full advice from representatives of the financial community prior to making its final decisions on major financing operations. Historically, this advice has been offered by debt management advisory committees established by the several major segments of the financial community. When so utilized, such a committee is recognized to be an advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 3.
Although the Treasury's final announcement of financing plans may not reflect the recommendations provided in reports of the Committee, premature disclosure of the Committee's deliberations and reports would be likely to lead to significant financial speculation in the securities market. Thus, this meeting falls within the exemption covered by 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(9)(A).
Treasury staff will provide a technical briefing to the press on the day before the Committee meeting, following the release of a statement of economic conditions and financing estimates. This briefing will give the press an opportunity to ask questions about financing projections. The day after the Committee meeting, Treasury will release the minutes of the meeting, any charts that were discussed at the meeting, and the Committee's report to the Secretary.
The Office of Debt Management is responsible for maintaining records of debt management advisory committee meetings and for providing annual reports setting forth a summary of Committee activities and such other matters as may be informative to the public consistent with the policy of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(b). The Designated Federal Officer or other responsible agency official who may be contacted for additional information is Fred Pietrangeli, Director for Office of Debt Management (202) 622-1876.
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments should be received on or before August 14, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate, or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to (1) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for Treasury, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, or email at
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Jennifer Leonard by emailing
Section 4081(a)(1)(A)(iii) imposes a tax on the entry into the United States of any taxable fuel, for consumption, use, or warehousing. This collection of information allows certain importers of record and sureties to avoid liability for the tax on the entry of taxable fuel into the United
States. Section 48.4081 3(c)(2)(iii) provides that if an importer of record has an unexpired notification certificate (as described in § 48.4081 5) from the enterer and has no reason to believe that any information in the notification certificate is false, the importer of record will not be liable for the tax on the entry of taxable fuel. Section 48.4081-3(c)(2)(iv) provides that a Customs bond posted with respect to the importation of fuel will not be charged for the tax imposed on the entry of fuel if the enterer is a taxable fuel registrant. If a surety has an unexpired notification certificate (as described in § 48.4081-5) from the enterer and has no reason to believe that any information in the notification certificate is false, the surety bond will not be charged for the tax imposed on the entry of taxable fuel.
44 U.S.C. 3501
As required by Section 9(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs hereby gives notice of the establishment of the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisory Committee (Committee). The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that establishing the Committee is both necessary and in the public interest.
The Committee will advise the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer on matters related to improving and enhancing VA's efforts to identify, prevent, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse across VA in order to improve the integrity of VA's payments and the efficiency of VA's programs and activities.
Committee members will be appointed by the Secretary and membership will be drawn from various sectors and organizations including but not limited to Veteran-focused organizations, academic communities, health care providers, insurance providers, other Federal agencies, former Federal Inspectors General, Veteran Service Organizations, Military Service Organizations, and leaders of key stakeholder associations and organizations.
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Gregory Woskow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 446D, Washington, DC, or email at
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the VA Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Advisor Committee (herein-after in this section referred to as “the Committee”).
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on July 24, 2017.
All nominations should be sent electronically to the Advisory Committee Management Office mailbox at
Gregory Woskow, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Finance, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., (047), Washington, DC 20420, telephone (720) 471-1255.
In carrying out the duties set forth, the activities of the Committee include, but are not limited to:
(1) Identifying best practices and lessons learned from private industry and other Federal agencies that VA can leverage to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of Department-wide activities to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in VA programs at significant risk;
(2) Providing advice on leveraging cutting-edge fraud detection and prevention tools and technologies used by other Federal agencies and private industry, including the identification of ways to utilize such tools in the short-term, as well as in the future, given VA's current Financial Management Business Transformation break-thru initiative; and
(3) Providing advice on leveraging partnerships and experience to assist in maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of VA's “Seek to Prevent Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (STOP FWA)” initiative, which is designed to increase activities that prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to reduce improper payments.
The Committee is being established by the directive of the Secretary of VA, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. The Committee will provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with advice related to improving and enhancing VA's efforts to identify, prevent, and mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse across VA in order to improve the integrity of VA's payments and the efficiency of VA's programs and activities.
The members of the Committee are appointed by the Secretary of Veteran Affairs from the general public, from various sectors and organizations, including but not limited to:
a. Veteran-focused organizations;
b. Academic communities;
c. Health care providers;
d. Other Federal agencies;
e. Insurance;
f. Former Inspectors General;
g. Veteran Service Organizations;
h. Military service organizations;
i. Academic communities; and
j. Leaders of key stakeholder associations and organizations.
In accordance with the Committee Charter, the Secretary shall determine the number, terms of service, and pay and allowances of Committee members, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed two years. The
To the extent possible, the Secretary seeks members who have diverse professional and personal qualifications including but not limited to subject matter experts in the areas described above. We ask that nominations include any relevant experience information so that VA can ensure diverse Committee membership.
Nominations should be typed (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include:
(1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
(2) The nominee's contact information, including name, mailing address, telephone numbers, and email address;
(3) The nominee's curriculum vitae; and
(4) A summary of the nominee's experience and qualifications relative to the membership considerations described above.
Individuals selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. Committee members will receive a stipend for attending Committee meetings, including per diem and reimbursement for eligible travel expenses incurred.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of VA Federal advisory committees is diverse in terms of points of view represented and the committee's capabilities. Appointments to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identify, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
(b) Section 10 of Executive Order 13761 is hereby amended by striking “July 12, 2017” and inserting in lieu thereof “October 12, 2017”.
(c) Subsection (b) of section 12 of Executive Order 13761 is hereby amended by striking “July 12, 2017” and inserting in lieu thereof “October 12, 2017”.
(d) Section 11 of Executive Order 13761 is hereby revoked.
| 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 |